Is this irrelevant?

Author
Marcos Napier Bohemian: 629 posts	Posted: 14 Oct 08, 11:43 Why nobody has mentioned that TCR is now #45 at brit charts?
Munchsack Royalty: 1770 posts	Posted: 14 Oct 08, 16:24 Because we all knew you really wanted to do it yourself so we thought we'd just leave it. This can't end well.
Knute Bohemian: 807 posts	Posted: 14 Oct 08, 16:28 Not nearly as irrelevant as you are. :)
Marcos Napier Bohemian: 629 posts	Posted: 15 Oct 08, 01:00 If it was #1, people would say YAY DID YOU SEE THAT?!... when it's #40 or something (and getting lower), it's "fuck the charts"... this denial is getting funnier each day.
Marcos Napier Bohemian: 629 posts	Posted: 15 Oct 08, 01:00 If it was #1, people would say YAY DID YOU SEE THAT?!... when it's #40 or something (and getting lower), it's "fuck the charts"... this denial is getting funnier each day.
Marcos Napier Bohemian: 629 posts	Posted: 15 Oct 08, 01:01 ok im being repetitive.
August R. Bohemian: 563 posts	Posted: 15 Oct 08, 04:02 Marcos Napier wrote: If it was #1, people would say YAY DID YOU SEE THAT?!... when it's #40 or something (and getting lower), it's "fuck the charts"... this denial is getting funnier each day. Well, the album peaked at #5 and THAT was the news. Queen II also peaked at #5 but I bet no one knows what position it held few weeks later. Yes, It IS irrelevant.
inu-liger Deity: 13186 posts	Posted: 15 Oct 08, 04:06 August R. wrote: Marcos Napier wrote: If it was #1, people would say YAY DID YOU SEE THAT?!... when it's #40 or something (and getting lower), it's "fuck the charts"... this denial is getting funnier each day. Well, the album peaked at #5 and THAT was the news. Queen II also peaked at #5 but I bet no one knows what position it held few weeks later. Yes, It IS irrelevant. This reply is relevant :-)
Munchsack Royalty: 1770 posts	Posted: 15 Oct 08, 10:56 August R. wrote: Marcos Napier wrote: If it was #1, people would say YAY DID YOU SEE THAT?!... when it's #40 or something (and getting lower), it's "fuck the charts"... this denial is getting funnier each day. Well, the album peaked at #5 and THAT was the news. Queen II also peaked at #5 but I bet no one knows what position it held few weeks later. Yes, It IS irrelevant. Exactly. And it's not denial, no-one's saying the album went to #1, we're just not celebrating it being away down at #40 or wherever it is. This can't end well.
Marcos Napier Bohemian: 629 posts	Posted: 15 Oct 08, 11:28 I didn't say that there should be parties all around the world to celebrate the fall of this thing in the charts. It's just interesting to notice the behaviour of a certain group of people, that seems to hate some "bad news" and prefer to ignore (here's the denial again) it. If the news that this masterpiece has sank in the charts is irrelevant, ok, fine.
Micrówave Delilah, on Medium Power Deity: 7039 posts	Posted: 15 Oct 08, 11:47 Brittany Spears is moving UP in the charts. I would rather go to her party. Sorry Brian. Since when (especially in today's radio world) do "the charts" drive you all here? Really!!! Unless you all are fans of Justin Timberlake, Lil Wayne, Slipknot, The Pussycat Dolls, and all that crap, then I apologize. Q+PR should be ashamed of themselves, falling behind Lil Wayne.

Marcos Napier Bohemian: 629 posts	Posted: 15 Oct 08, 12:56 The charts seems to be an important part to some people for them to create threads with a certain hype feel celebrating the #5 or whatever was the peak. Then when it reaches #50, it isn't worth a thread? Not fair.
April Bohemian: 440 posts	Posted: 15 Oct 08, 17:05 Why is Britney Spears moving up? Is the reason good music? No. It`s just the majority of the population prefer easy simple pop music and their choice influences the charts. Another reason is showbusiness and its rules of making money, somebody needs B. Spears to go up. Don`t pay so much attention to charts. Hitting 5 for a while was very good indeed.

New Topic

New Poll