Heilan Coo wrote:But they do mean dick, really! Do you think in years to come, people are going to look back and think that East 17 were one of the greatest boy-bands of all time, judging by how many records they shifted? Will they bollocks. If they've got any sense, they'll remember them as a half-arsed "bad-boy" alternative to nice, squeaky-clean, take-'em-home-for-tea Take That.
But trying to compare the relative merits of E17 and Take That might chart placing not actually be a good starting point at trying to work out their relative merits?
I mean you wouldn't want to listen to the records would you, so looking att he relative chart histories seems like a pretty good way of making a value judgement.
In the end, all chart placings come down to is who managed to sell a certain amount of records in one week.
Well worked out, that had been bothering me.
If you place any importance in length of time spent at #1, then that would mean that Bryan Adams' "Everything I Do" is up there with the entire run of #1s by The Rolling Stones. Is it hell.
[/quote]
I haven't even considered length of time at position yet.
It would be stupid to compare one Bryan Admas song against the recording history of the Rolling Stones, but if you compare bryan Adams' chart history against the Rolling Stones' it is pretty obvious who is the better band.
It's Summer of '69 which swings it his way obviously.
Sorry, but come on, a hit automatically means a high placing.
No it doesn't. Technically it means somewhere inthe top 40.
Next time you go into a record store, have a look and see if you can a find a sticker on an album that says "Includes the #37 hit....."
What liek teh Supergrass Greatest "hits" album ?
I'm sorry, mate but I just don't agree with your whole chart theory.
They laughed at Einstein.
Popular doesn't mean better and doesn't make me a music snob.
We're all music snobs heer admit it.
I'm just saying when comparing apples with apples perhaps most popular is the best.
At least it gives you a objective answer rather than a subjective one. I like that.
Music's such a uniquely personal thing to everyone that any attempt to add formula or cold hard stats as to why people might prefer one band to another is just barmy.
true, but I'm not going to let a small thing like that stop me.
Just because carrots outsell parsnips in Tesco one week doesn't mean that they're universally loved by the nation as a whole.
But who doesn't think carrots are better than parsnips? If parsnips were any good they'd outsell carrots, they don't, carrots are obviously better.
You're wasting your time with this one, Cope! I don't think there's one person on here who would think it's a sensible theory.
well there is one
There is a reason that the Manics have had more chart success than Supergrass. I'd hazard a guess it is because they are a more popular band, and I'd say they are more popular because they are objectively better at what they do.
See? there is method to the madness.
Oh, and for the record, this music snob likes both the Manics and Supergrass equally
[/quote]
I would have said I did at the start of the thread but now I realise I was wrong, I listen to the manics at least every week, I probably go weeks without listening to Supergrass, so I have come to teh conclusion that I like teh Manics more and have voted that way.
I do like Supergrasses early stuff but they have become a tedious bore, I have only found 1 manics album tedious - This is My truth - and that was their biggest hit album
, but I can even find a few songs on their I like - are You Stole the Sun and Tsunami on that one? they are top tunes. Every other album has, as I keep saying, at least 4-5 great tunes on it. I swear.
very underrated branch of popular music, from Beatles through the Monkees and Jackson 5 to the peak of Backstreet Boys...
