I think the majority of people with any semblance of a varied taste in music would agree that for two bands to be taking up a fifth of the top 100 is ridiculous. Anyway I didn't state a preference for the bands as the point I was making is that radio playlists are so very predictable.
Am I getting old or ....
- Thread starter magick
- Start date
I think the majority of people with any semblance of a varied taste in music would agree that for two bands to be taking up a fifth of the top 100 is ridiculous. Anyway I didn't state a preference for the bands as the point I was making is that radio playlists are so very predictable.
I think it just isn't to your taste. I have quite an eclectic taste in music and there are current chart songs that I both like and despise, same as there are from previous decades. But I wouldn't say the current chart is any better or worse overall than previously.
You may find in a couple years when a new wave of music descends that you quite like that... but then you'll be the creepy old guy trying to be 'down with the kids'
You may find in a couple years when a new wave of music descends that you quite like that... but then you'll be the creepy old guy trying to be 'down with the kids'
No you are missing the point, there is no right or wrong proportion of band or style when it come to making a top 100.
Limiting a band to a certain number of songs would render your top 100 no more valid, possibly less so, than anyone elses as it would have artificial conditions set to it.
I'm really not missing the point. I wouldn't want to restrict the number of songs a band could have. I just happen to disagree that any band has ten of their own that deserve to be in the top hundred. Anyway as I've already said the point was to highlight how narrow the playlists on mainstream radio are, not to get into a debate about what music people like.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 6,575
- Location
- UK
Lacks enough instruments imo. Too simple.
I mean I hate listening to that personally
, far prefer most 80's stuff.Even rick astley is far nicer to listen to imo.
In the end I can't really give an objective opinion, I like it or I don't, I don't like most stuff on the radio these days, it drives me mad, I listen to a mix on the eagles, pink floyd, genesis, ELO and various 70's and 80's hits at work and try to ignore the radio in the background.
Last edited:
I like a mix of new and older songs personally. If I just listen to Radio 1, I miss hearing older classics. If I just listen to an older station I miss newer songs.
I also don't just like one specific genre of music, I like a mix of all sorts.
Saying all that though, I really cant get on with 80's pop.
I also don't just like one specific genre of music, I like a mix of all sorts.
Saying all that though, I really cant get on with 80's pop.
My own experience backs this up. I own a lot of music CDs from the 80s and 90s, as well as some modern stuff.
I add 95th percentile Replay Gain to my entire library for the benefit of shuffle play on my MP3 player. Almost invariably with modern stuff the result is negative gain, and almost invariably with old stuff it's positive - sometimes lots positive.
This situation isn't helped by pubs and clubs competing with each other to see who can be the loudest - to the point where it gets uncomfortable to stay in the place (often because their system just can't handle it) unless you're too drunk to notice.
Subtle, but well played.
Including the classic
thats where its at
See, as a child of the 90's, I finding myself preferring the Lady Gaga style song to that.