50. The X-Men Trilogy (2000-2006)
In between all the Lord of the Rings, Spider-Man, Hulk and Fantastic Four crap, there stands this trilogy of very very entertaining sci-fi flicks. Unlike Lord of the Rings, you don't have to be an expert on the source material to understand what's going on. And, unlike Spider-Man, Hulk and Fantastic Four, this series seemed to realize that, while special effects are lots of fun, they are nothing without an intelligently written story. As absurd as this may sound when talking about a trilogy involving mutants, the characters are believable and the multiple stroy arcs all fit together and ensure that there's never a dull moment. The characters are not defined by their abilities, like in so many other sci-fi pictures, but by their personalities, and, indeed, many characters seem to embody such qualities as intelligence, coolness, insecutiry, sexiness and wisdom. Conversely, unlike much sci-fi drivel, no character is defined in terms of 'good' or 'evil'. There are differing ideologies, to be sure, but no one is totally pure and wholesome of motives, and no one is there simply to be 'the bad guy'.
I saw all three of these movies at the theater and, each time, I found myself wishing for more. I wish I could say that about more movies.
Why not rate this film higher? One reason why I wanted each movie to last longer was because a few of the storylines are frustratingly underdeveloped. There are so many loose ends that the third film seems to have trouble tying them all together. Oh - and that third film, while certainly a respectably entry in the series, is notably the weakest of the three. The great charcterizations of the first two take a back seat to explosions and quick-fixes.
49. Rebecca (1940)
My list is very Hitchcock-heavy (pun intended). So let's start off with one right here at #49: Rebecca. Often cited as a "chick flick" in the Hitchcock canon, this black-and-white picture is the only Hitchcock film to win the Oscar for Best Picture.
The film begins in a humorous tone, and gets steadily more serious as details of the characters' lives are revealed. It is, basically, the sotry of a young wife finding herself living very much in the shadow of her husband's former (and now deceased) first wife. While the husband, Max, seems to love his new bride, it is the housekeeper that seems to have trouble accepting the new lady of the house. In between this triable of characters are plot twists, symbolism, and slases of humor typical of a Hitchock offering.
Fun game:Try to figure out the name of Joan Fontaine's character.
Why not rate this film higher? Like I said, it's a "chick flick" or, as much of a "chick flick" as Hitchcock ever made, and I am no chick. Also, time has been unkind to certain aspects of the dialogue and story; it's a little bit dated. Oh, and it's also a little too long, in my haughty opinion.
48. Ingen Numsil (2003)
During the first few minutes this film shows us just how vital the camel is to the well being of the family. So, it’s somewhat of a problem when one of the newborn camels is rejected by its mother. The remainder of the film is spent showing us the different ways in which the family tries to get the mother to accept its calf. The different approaches progressively get more extreme and time consuming. Some of the family’s efforts are comical, but most were quite frustrating.
The final fifteen minutes or so is the best portion of the film. And, if you’re gonna have a “best portion of the film”, it’s a good idea to put it at the end. I don’t want to give away the denouement, but suffice it to say the infant camel is only marginally hanging on to its new life by this point and the situation has become desperate. The fact that camels can cry was a revelation to me. Coupled with the somber music (the only soundtrack in the whole film!), the conclusion was quite emotional.
This film has to be one of the best examples I’ve seen of the style of cinematography perfectly matching the story being told. The slow, plodding intro gives us a glipmpse into the family’s pace of life. The bleak, minimal soundtrack and sparse editing match up nicely with the barren landscape upon which the story is told. The shots are often hand-held, giving it a more documentary feel, again befitting the life of the characters’. Indeed, the documentary feel is best exemplified by the fact that on a couple of occasions, non-actors in the background actually look right at the camera (typically a no-no). To give the viewer more of a “this is our family” feel, like so many home-made videos, the camera is, a couple of times, struggling to get the best shot of the action. A good example is during the camel’s birth: while shooting the scene, family members run right in front of the camera and the cinematographer is forced to dodge and weave around them in an effort to get the footage.
If you do see it, know that the film fades back in. Twice. And you’ll be glad you stayed for those two “footnotes”.
Why not rate the film higher? Well, as I've said, it's a little on the slow side. A little too slow for my liking. And while it is a moving, passionate, story, it is just a smiple story. Not that that's a bad thing, but it does lessen the impact on further viewings.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
My Fifty All-Time Favorite Motion Pictures
I love making lists, and one list I always wanted to make was a list of my all-time favorite films. I actually made such a list about 8 years ago, but for some stupid reason I divided the list by short films, animated films, comedies, dramas and silent films. This, plus the fact that my wife and I have watched about 500 motion pictures in the eight years since, has made me realize that I should make a new list.
So I did.
I didn’t show many people the list, because I was afraid of offending some people who may have a stricter conscience. But then I remembered, “the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones” (Ecclesiastes 7:9). What strikes me as funny, anyways, is why someone who is – of feels they will be – offended would continue reading. So here’s the deal, if you are the kind of person who gets offended, then you are, by default, stupid. So stop reading this right now and go do whatever it is stupid people do.
I’m rather happy with my list. I have seen similar lists from other people and many of them seem skewed in a certain way; some lists have only major studio blockbusters, while other lists were are made by people who purposely exclude any popular motion picture. Some are heavily weighted towards drama, as if sci-fi and comedy are not worthy of being highly esteemed. Still other lists contain only movies from the last ten or twenty years.
In creating my list, I made sure not exclude anything simply because of its genre, age or length. Unfortunately, the list is still weighted towards films made during my lifetime, but I attribute that, not to a disdain for older films, but merely to the fact that I’ve seen newer films. I have every reason believe that if I were to see as many films from, say, the 1940s as I’ve seen from the 1990s, then there would be many more films from that decade on the list. As it is, there are multiple films from each decade since the 1940s.
To create the list, I sorted my list of feature length motion pictures I have seen by rank. I rank every motion picture I see on a scale of 0 – 10. On my list of over 1,100 motion pictures, there were only 22 that I assigned a perfect “10”. Those, of course, made the list. I then looked at the pictures I had assigned a “9”, and selected my favorites from those. I then looked at my list of short films I have seen, and selected my favorites from that list. This gave me a list of 63 pictures. I then had the difficult task of paring the list down to 50. The thirteen motion pictures that got chopped are (alphabetically): The Day the Earth Stood Still, Dumbo, Ed Wood, East of Eden, Falling Down, Gandhi, Monsters, Inc., The Ox-box Incident, Pee-wee’s Big Adventure, Roger and Me, The Shawshank Redemption, Superman (parts I and II), and Top Secret. Sorry, guys, you’re all excellent films in my opinion, but you just didn’t hold up against 50 others…
Oh – and one other thing, I took some liberties in lumping together series films. If my list contained multiple motion pictures from the same series, I listed them as one single entry. If I thought the series didn’t hold up well enough, then I just listed the film(s) from the series that were worthy. Thus, my list contains the X-Men trilogy as a single entry, but it contains only the original Back to the Future picture.
Over the next month or so, I’ll periodically make posts here discussing my fifty all-time favorite motion pictures. I’m gonna go in reverse order, starting at number fifty. I would love any comments regarding why you would or would not put these films on a similar (albeit hypothetical) list of your own.
So I did.
I didn’t show many people the list, because I was afraid of offending some people who may have a stricter conscience. But then I remembered, “the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones” (Ecclesiastes 7:9). What strikes me as funny, anyways, is why someone who is – of feels they will be – offended would continue reading. So here’s the deal, if you are the kind of person who gets offended, then you are, by default, stupid. So stop reading this right now and go do whatever it is stupid people do.
I’m rather happy with my list. I have seen similar lists from other people and many of them seem skewed in a certain way; some lists have only major studio blockbusters, while other lists were are made by people who purposely exclude any popular motion picture. Some are heavily weighted towards drama, as if sci-fi and comedy are not worthy of being highly esteemed. Still other lists contain only movies from the last ten or twenty years.
In creating my list, I made sure not exclude anything simply because of its genre, age or length. Unfortunately, the list is still weighted towards films made during my lifetime, but I attribute that, not to a disdain for older films, but merely to the fact that I’ve seen newer films. I have every reason believe that if I were to see as many films from, say, the 1940s as I’ve seen from the 1990s, then there would be many more films from that decade on the list. As it is, there are multiple films from each decade since the 1940s.
To create the list, I sorted my list of feature length motion pictures I have seen by rank. I rank every motion picture I see on a scale of 0 – 10. On my list of over 1,100 motion pictures, there were only 22 that I assigned a perfect “10”. Those, of course, made the list. I then looked at the pictures I had assigned a “9”, and selected my favorites from those. I then looked at my list of short films I have seen, and selected my favorites from that list. This gave me a list of 63 pictures. I then had the difficult task of paring the list down to 50. The thirteen motion pictures that got chopped are (alphabetically): The Day the Earth Stood Still, Dumbo, Ed Wood, East of Eden, Falling Down, Gandhi, Monsters, Inc., The Ox-box Incident, Pee-wee’s Big Adventure, Roger and Me, The Shawshank Redemption, Superman (parts I and II), and Top Secret. Sorry, guys, you’re all excellent films in my opinion, but you just didn’t hold up against 50 others…
Oh – and one other thing, I took some liberties in lumping together series films. If my list contained multiple motion pictures from the same series, I listed them as one single entry. If I thought the series didn’t hold up well enough, then I just listed the film(s) from the series that were worthy. Thus, my list contains the X-Men trilogy as a single entry, but it contains only the original Back to the Future picture.
Over the next month or so, I’ll periodically make posts here discussing my fifty all-time favorite motion pictures. I’m gonna go in reverse order, starting at number fifty. I would love any comments regarding why you would or would not put these films on a similar (albeit hypothetical) list of your own.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Science Fair
Don’t let the title mislead you, it doesn’t mean that I’m am fair judge of science; it means that I was a judge at science fair. I was such a judge on Thursday, January 18th at the Hopkins High School.
Three people judged each science project: two adults “in the industry” and one senior in an advanced science class. It appeared as though every single freshman had to participate, so the quality of each project varied greatly. I signed up to judge the students’ projects in the astronomy/physics division. The coordinator gave each judge around a dozen sheets of paper. Each sheet had a project number on it, telling us who to go judge, and a ‘checklist’ of about twenty items that we would judge the project on. Some of the items on the checklist were creativity, originality, appearance, clarity and accuracy.
After grabbing some of the free food available, I set off to go judge the projects. Each project was displayed on a cardboard triptych and students waited by their project until a judge came by. When I located the first project I needed to judge, there was a girl waiting for me, sitting on the table. When she saw me coming, she jumped up and shook my hand and introduced herself. Get this: she made a hoverboard. I had absolutely no idea how to make a hoverboard, or even what exactly a hoverboard is, but she was more than willing to explain it to me in a prepared spiel. Turns out, she was trying to find out what surface gave the hoverboard the best lift: grass or concrete. I was very impressed. While reading the info on her board, at one point she said to me: “You’re making me nervous.” When I asked he why, she said it was because I wasn’t saying anything. “I’m busy reading your stuff”, I told her. It’s funny to think that I was intimidating to someone.
I also got to judge a project involving the testing of fishing lines (most lines don’t hold up as well as they say they do), the best room for good guitar acoustics, how fast pop-corn dissolves, the best angle to launch an arrow, and what flooring provides the best basketball bounce.
The only other project that impressed me as much as the hoverboard was one involving paint balls. Although not as original as the hoverboard idea, the kid made up for it in thoroughness. He had attached a paintball gun to a table, and then received permission from the city to fire the gun in a local park. He ran a line straight out from the gun some 200 yards, then fired eight different name brands of paint ball ten times each and measured how far they deviated from the line. The goal was to see which brand strayed the least from the line, and, by dividing the distance skewed by the price per ball; he calculated which brands were the best for one’s money. His charts, graphs and diagrams were very thorough and eye-catching. It was very cool.
Next month I get to judge a regional science fair. It will feature the winners of all the school-level contests from all over the metro area.
Three people judged each science project: two adults “in the industry” and one senior in an advanced science class. It appeared as though every single freshman had to participate, so the quality of each project varied greatly. I signed up to judge the students’ projects in the astronomy/physics division. The coordinator gave each judge around a dozen sheets of paper. Each sheet had a project number on it, telling us who to go judge, and a ‘checklist’ of about twenty items that we would judge the project on. Some of the items on the checklist were creativity, originality, appearance, clarity and accuracy.
After grabbing some of the free food available, I set off to go judge the projects. Each project was displayed on a cardboard triptych and students waited by their project until a judge came by. When I located the first project I needed to judge, there was a girl waiting for me, sitting on the table. When she saw me coming, she jumped up and shook my hand and introduced herself. Get this: she made a hoverboard. I had absolutely no idea how to make a hoverboard, or even what exactly a hoverboard is, but she was more than willing to explain it to me in a prepared spiel. Turns out, she was trying to find out what surface gave the hoverboard the best lift: grass or concrete. I was very impressed. While reading the info on her board, at one point she said to me: “You’re making me nervous.” When I asked he why, she said it was because I wasn’t saying anything. “I’m busy reading your stuff”, I told her. It’s funny to think that I was intimidating to someone.
I also got to judge a project involving the testing of fishing lines (most lines don’t hold up as well as they say they do), the best room for good guitar acoustics, how fast pop-corn dissolves, the best angle to launch an arrow, and what flooring provides the best basketball bounce.
The only other project that impressed me as much as the hoverboard was one involving paint balls. Although not as original as the hoverboard idea, the kid made up for it in thoroughness. He had attached a paintball gun to a table, and then received permission from the city to fire the gun in a local park. He ran a line straight out from the gun some 200 yards, then fired eight different name brands of paint ball ten times each and measured how far they deviated from the line. The goal was to see which brand strayed the least from the line, and, by dividing the distance skewed by the price per ball; he calculated which brands were the best for one’s money. His charts, graphs and diagrams were very thorough and eye-catching. It was very cool.
Next month I get to judge a regional science fair. It will feature the winners of all the school-level contests from all over the metro area.
Housekeeping
So, I'm just gonna take this opportunity to talk about a few odds and ends.
First off, the wife and I are once again participating in the Humane Society for Companion Animal's annual "Fur Bowl" to help raise money for unwanted animals. So, if you'd like to contribute to the cause, send us some money. Make checks payable to HSCA. And don't forget to write it off on your taxes next month.
Second, I stated about a year ago that I was going to keep track of two things this year: the number of times I ate at fast food and the number of perfect-weather days that there were here in Minnesota. Click here to see my initial statement on this issue and my criteria for each item. I know it's not the end of the year yet, but I don't think either list will be amended in the last 8 days of the year.
On the topic of fast food: I am sorry to report that I gave up keeping track of this around mid-may, so I lack a complete list. But I believe the answer to the question "how much fast food do I eat" is this: TOO MUCH. In my defense, I only once ate at one of the really crappy dives (Taco Bell) and I never ate at Burger King, McDonald's, Hardee's, Dairy Queen or those kinds of places. Nevertheless, by May 8th of this year, I had eaten at 24 fast food restaurants, including Pizza Hut (once), LeAnn Chin (3x), Subway (2x) and Panera (4x). So a goal for next year is...not so much with the fast food, James.
On the topic of prefect weather days: Of the 365 days in this year, I spent 348 in the Twin Cities. Of those 348, my opinion is that there were THREE days of perfect weather (again, click above to read the criteria). Those three days were April 28, August 30 and October 1. Since the temperature had to be high enough to not require any coat, this ruled out about 6 months of the year. June, July and August are much too hot, and the other days either had wind or precipitation or were completely overcast. I know it sounds weird to say that October 1 was a perfect weather day, but it was true! I spent that day at an amusement park and wore shorts! I even went on a you-will-get-wet ride and didn't freeze! The sun was out, there was very little wind and all in all I have nothing to complain about. Goal for 2007: FOUR perfect weather days. Come on Minnesota, you can do it!
First off, the wife and I are once again participating in the Humane Society for Companion Animal's annual "Fur Bowl" to help raise money for unwanted animals. So, if you'd like to contribute to the cause, send us some money. Make checks payable to HSCA. And don't forget to write it off on your taxes next month.
Second, I stated about a year ago that I was going to keep track of two things this year: the number of times I ate at fast food and the number of perfect-weather days that there were here in Minnesota. Click here to see my initial statement on this issue and my criteria for each item. I know it's not the end of the year yet, but I don't think either list will be amended in the last 8 days of the year.
On the topic of fast food: I am sorry to report that I gave up keeping track of this around mid-may, so I lack a complete list. But I believe the answer to the question "how much fast food do I eat" is this: TOO MUCH. In my defense, I only once ate at one of the really crappy dives (Taco Bell) and I never ate at Burger King, McDonald's, Hardee's, Dairy Queen or those kinds of places. Nevertheless, by May 8th of this year, I had eaten at 24 fast food restaurants, including Pizza Hut (once), LeAnn Chin (3x), Subway (2x) and Panera (4x). So a goal for next year is...not so much with the fast food, James.
On the topic of prefect weather days: Of the 365 days in this year, I spent 348 in the Twin Cities. Of those 348, my opinion is that there were THREE days of perfect weather (again, click above to read the criteria). Those three days were April 28, August 30 and October 1. Since the temperature had to be high enough to not require any coat, this ruled out about 6 months of the year. June, July and August are much too hot, and the other days either had wind or precipitation or were completely overcast. I know it sounds weird to say that October 1 was a perfect weather day, but it was true! I spent that day at an amusement park and wore shorts! I even went on a you-will-get-wet ride and didn't freeze! The sun was out, there was very little wind and all in all I have nothing to complain about. Goal for 2007: FOUR perfect weather days. Come on Minnesota, you can do it!
The Charts
One of the many things I keep track of is the current number one song. I started tracking this in 1991, way back when I had to look up the information in an actual paper version of Billboard magazine. Now, of course, I just check it out on line.
Some of my friends have commented that the songs that reach number one are generally lousy songs and the whole idea of tracking art based on popularity is a terrible thing to do. To an extent, I agree. But it is fun to see how songs that I like are doing on the charts, and, every once in a while, a song that I like actually ascends to the top spot. I think it also gives a nice snapshot of the music industry and pop culture at that particular time.
And that’s why I wanted to mention an interesting development in the Billboard charts and what it says about radio stations.
In the beginning, Billboard tracked songs based on their sales: both to individual customers and to juke box designers. Soon, the juke box portion was dropped and Billboard stuck exclusively with record store sales. For the most part, this was a good idea. But two problems developed. First, some songs became very popular but were never released as singles. Starting in the late 1960s, music acts would sometimes not release songs as singles, in an effort to keep the album “together”. Thus, songs like the Beatles’ “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”, Derek and the Dominoes “Layla” and Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven” – which are among the most popular songs of that era – never appeared anywhere on Billboard’s 100 because they were never released as singles. The second problem was that, as CDs became more popular, the price of singles was no longer that much lower than a whole album. That is, people who liked only one or two songs of an album just figured they might as well buy the whole album since it was only a couple dollars more than the individual songs. Essentially, the idea of a single – which used to dominate record store – began to die.
In an effort to keep the charts relevant, Billboard decided to begin tracking radio airplay of songs. As singles became less and less popular, more weight was given to airplay than to actual purchases.
You probably know where this is heading. Radio stations, regardless of what they tell us, have no variety. They play a song over and over and over and over again. When they find an ‘artist’ they like, they play that ‘artist's’ songs over and over again. Nowhere is this more evident than on the Billboard charts. First, take a look at how many songs went to #1 each year from 1984 and 1991:
Year...Number of #1 Hits
1984...19
1985...26
1986...30
1987...29
1988...32
1989...32
1990...25
1991...27
Look at that! Every year, there were at least 19 songs that became #1 hits, and in a few years there were more than thirty. Not one of these songs maintained the top spot for more than seven weeks. Some of these songs were hip-hop, others were rock, others were country. Once airplay began to be the deciding factor instead of the more democratic sales, look what happened:
Year...Number of #1 Hits
1992...12
1993...10
1994...9
1995...11
1996...8
1997...9
1998...15
1999...14
Starting in 1992 (the year airplay began to be factored in), there were only a handful of songs that went to number one each year; with some years having less than 10 new number one songs. Every year there were songs that stayed at #1 for more than 8 weeks, with some songs staying at #1 for 12, 14 and even 16 weeks (that’s four months without turnover)! Worse still, almost all of these songs were hip-hop/rap – often with an ‘artist’ replacing themselves in the top spot. For example, 4 of the 11 songs that went to #1 in 2004 were by Usher. And after an Outkast song spent 9 weeks at #1 in 2003, they were finally replaced by...Outkast . The variety had ceased to exist.
Needless to say, I was bummed. Checking out the charts each year was getting boring. Week after week, I would check the chart and rarely see a change. Would it ever get better?
Indeed, it did. Thanks to iTunes, the idea of a ‘single’ once again became popular. Suddenly, people were once again buying only single songs. By 2005, Billboard took notice and decided it was time to factor digital sales into the equation. Finally, the popularity of a song would once again be dominated – not by a handful of radio execs – but by the masses.
Was there a change? Yep. In 2006 there have been 18 songs that have gone to #1. That’s more #1s than any year since 1991 (and there are still two weeks left of the year - so there could still be more #1s). No song this year has spent more than seven weeks in the top spot. For the first time in years, I have actually heard of some of these songs and their performers.
So, here’s a tip of the cap to Billboard for redefining popularity to coincide with the times. Also, check out this page. I wrote a brief email to Fred Bronson (a column writer for Billboard’s charts) and he posted it, along with his response, on this page.
Some of my friends have commented that the songs that reach number one are generally lousy songs and the whole idea of tracking art based on popularity is a terrible thing to do. To an extent, I agree. But it is fun to see how songs that I like are doing on the charts, and, every once in a while, a song that I like actually ascends to the top spot. I think it also gives a nice snapshot of the music industry and pop culture at that particular time.
And that’s why I wanted to mention an interesting development in the Billboard charts and what it says about radio stations.
In the beginning, Billboard tracked songs based on their sales: both to individual customers and to juke box designers. Soon, the juke box portion was dropped and Billboard stuck exclusively with record store sales. For the most part, this was a good idea. But two problems developed. First, some songs became very popular but were never released as singles. Starting in the late 1960s, music acts would sometimes not release songs as singles, in an effort to keep the album “together”. Thus, songs like the Beatles’ “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”, Derek and the Dominoes “Layla” and Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven” – which are among the most popular songs of that era – never appeared anywhere on Billboard’s 100 because they were never released as singles. The second problem was that, as CDs became more popular, the price of singles was no longer that much lower than a whole album. That is, people who liked only one or two songs of an album just figured they might as well buy the whole album since it was only a couple dollars more than the individual songs. Essentially, the idea of a single – which used to dominate record store – began to die.
In an effort to keep the charts relevant, Billboard decided to begin tracking radio airplay of songs. As singles became less and less popular, more weight was given to airplay than to actual purchases.
You probably know where this is heading. Radio stations, regardless of what they tell us, have no variety. They play a song over and over and over and over again. When they find an ‘artist’ they like, they play that ‘artist's’ songs over and over again. Nowhere is this more evident than on the Billboard charts. First, take a look at how many songs went to #1 each year from 1984 and 1991:
Year...Number of #1 Hits
1984...19
1985...26
1986...30
1987...29
1988...32
1989...32
1990...25
1991...27
Look at that! Every year, there were at least 19 songs that became #1 hits, and in a few years there were more than thirty. Not one of these songs maintained the top spot for more than seven weeks. Some of these songs were hip-hop, others were rock, others were country. Once airplay began to be the deciding factor instead of the more democratic sales, look what happened:
Year...Number of #1 Hits
1992...12
1993...10
1994...9
1995...11
1996...8
1997...9
1998...15
1999...14
Starting in 1992 (the year airplay began to be factored in), there were only a handful of songs that went to number one each year; with some years having less than 10 new number one songs. Every year there were songs that stayed at #1 for more than 8 weeks, with some songs staying at #1 for 12, 14 and even 16 weeks (that’s four months without turnover)! Worse still, almost all of these songs were hip-hop/rap – often with an ‘artist’ replacing themselves in the top spot. For example, 4 of the 11 songs that went to #1 in 2004 were by Usher. And after an Outkast song spent 9 weeks at #1 in 2003, they were finally replaced by...Outkast . The variety had ceased to exist.
Needless to say, I was bummed. Checking out the charts each year was getting boring. Week after week, I would check the chart and rarely see a change. Would it ever get better?
Indeed, it did. Thanks to iTunes, the idea of a ‘single’ once again became popular. Suddenly, people were once again buying only single songs. By 2005, Billboard took notice and decided it was time to factor digital sales into the equation. Finally, the popularity of a song would once again be dominated – not by a handful of radio execs – but by the masses.
Was there a change? Yep. In 2006 there have been 18 songs that have gone to #1. That’s more #1s than any year since 1991 (and there are still two weeks left of the year - so there could still be more #1s). No song this year has spent more than seven weeks in the top spot. For the first time in years, I have actually heard of some of these songs and their performers.
So, here’s a tip of the cap to Billboard for redefining popularity to coincide with the times. Also, check out this page. I wrote a brief email to Fred Bronson (a column writer for Billboard’s charts) and he posted it, along with his response, on this page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)