 |
  |
| Streaming | General Discussion, FAQs, debates, etc. |
| Track this thread | Email this thread | Print this thread | Download this thread | Subscribe to this forum |
 23rd January 2016, 10:38 PM
Post
#101
|
|
 BuzzJack Climber
Joined: 6 July 2015
Posts: 90 User: 22,084 
  |
QUOTE(AcerBen @ Jan 23 2016, 05:43 PM)  I'm pro-streaming being in the chart but I'm also tired of how slow it is and how long songs are staying in it. Can anyone come up with a system that gives more weight to newer songs but doesn't end up making the chart meaningless? I wouldn't want them to remove songs like What Do You Mean altogether, but there must be some formula they could use to reflect the fact that it's no longer gaining in popularity, and it's just the same people listening to it over and over. There's no doubt it's still a popular song and should be on the chart, but at the same time the chart is supposed to be a promotional tool for the record industry, and how can it be if one artist is hogging 3 of the top 5? I don't know what the answer is. I think they will have to do something because a static streaming levels chart is going to be very sluggish. You could introduce a formula of sales equivalent = streams / (100 X number of weeks since first chart entry) or similar. The other thing that occurs to me is that sooner or later they will have to include video streaming because some people consume their music with videos and some without. If you are trying to represent consumption accurately, then you can't arbitrarily ignore people who like videos with their music. In order to remain competitive Spotify & Apple and co are going to offer videos at some point - it's going to be bizarre to differentiate between those watching them and those not. |
 |
 
|
|
24th January 2016, 07:42 AM
Post
#102
|
|
 Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
 |
QUOTE(Griff @ Jan 23 2016, 09:48 PM) Oh please. I would imagine these people probably stream Bieber multiple times each day. Therefore they have seven sales every week instead of one. They can stream it as often as they want, but only the first 70 streams each week count towards the chart. Then there's always the question - are people streaming a song because they genuinely like it, or simply to manipulate the chart? 
This post has been edited by vidcapper: 24th January 2016, 07:44 AM |
|
|
|
|
24th January 2016, 07:51 AM
Post
#103
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
Why do people stream songs, anyway?
For me, it's only a once-off to check out new songs. If I discover one I like, I'll buy it, and therefore have it permanently available on my iPod. For me, that's far more convenient than having to stream it every time I want to hear it. 
|
|
|
|
|
24th January 2016, 08:57 AM
Post
#104
|
|
 Chart Chat Slave
Joined: 19 March 2006
Posts: 64,362 User: 275
     |
QUOTE(popchartfreak @ Jan 23 2016, 11:01 PM) And they would drop out of the chart immediately after charting if it was just a fanbase track - I would say it's fair enough if a fan is prepared to pay for 5 formats (and help both the artist and the music industry by buying them - you did after all get bonus tracks that these days get stuck on "deluxe" albums to try and get you to buy the same product twice). Not paying for anything at all, and having your listening habits dominate the chart (which they clearly do to at least an extent) would be like giving away free singles in the cd era and have them count towards the chart. I'm not in favour of advert-paid-for listening having ANY contribution to the charts for that reason. If you don't pay, you don't get it counted as chart.... The sooner that happens the better. I don't think it will happen, but I must be honest that's a very valid point. I was a bit surprised when I read at that time that also streaming from free subscriptions wil lbe counted if the royalties are paid (by adverts for example). If I could change the rules somehow I would change two things: 1. streaming would count only from paid subscriptions, and nothing from free subscriptions. It would surely change the chart somehow as I'm pretty sure the bigger share of the Spotify users use the srvice for free. 2. I would change the 30 sec rule. Now if you listen to a song 30 seconds long it will count. I would change it to 1 min 30 sec, that's almost half a song and if someone want to multilisten to a song, that is a length that maybe won't worth doing it. QUOTE(JCM20 @ Jan 23 2016, 05:33 PM) Proper sales are only terrible here now because streaming was introduced, making it easier for free access - they were fine beforehand: Rather Be sold almost 163,000 in its first week, plus My Love, I Got U, Nobody to Love, Hideaway, Waves and Summer all sold over 100,000 in the first half of 2014. Casual music listeners/buyers are not even aware how the chart works. Maybe they've heard about the introduction of streaming into the charts but I can't imagine a casual music buyer started streaming just because of that (only the chart fans like us, who visit this forum for example). Sales were already dropping when streaming was introduced, plus streaming wasn't a new thing, it was already there for a couple of years when it was incorporated to the charts. But as I said people don't buy or stream a song just because "oh I want it to chart so I stream it rather 70 times..." QUOTE(girl_from_oz @ Jan 23 2016, 07:28 PM) Spotify needs a fresh playlist, just take stuff off the playlist when it's been out a few weeks Which playlist do you mean? There are a lot of playlists, even a "New Music Friday" playlist  (I myself follow it actually)QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jan 24 2016, 08:51 AM) Why do people stream songs, anyway? For me, it's only a once-off to check out new songs. If I discover one I like, I'll buy it, and therefore have it permanently available on my iPod. For me, that's far more convenient than having to stream it every time I want to hear it. Well not everyone is like you, younger people find it easier to do for example a playlist at home on Spotify and then just access it on their mobilphone and listen to it, also permanently. Streaming = listening to music but on an internet platform. And internet is nowadays almost everywhere available, so it's easy. In fact if you're a paid subscriber you can listen to it offline so it doesn't eat up your monthly internet availability. QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jan 24 2016, 08:42 AM) They can stream it as often as they want, but only the first 70 streams each week count towards the chart. Then there's always the question - are people streaming a song because they genuinely like it, or simply to manipulate the chart? Not the first 70 but the first 10 everyday  This manipulation thing is a bit exaggerated by us, chart nerds I think. There are surely some people who want to manipulate in favour their faves but casual music listeners don't give a sh*t imo 
|
|
|
|
|
24th January 2016, 09:06 AM
Post
#105
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 10 July 2008
Posts: 2,149 User: 6,614
|
The stuff about "streaming biases the chart to 15 year olds" was all being said a decade ago about downloads replacing CDs - maybe around the time Umbrella was #1 for about a year.
It was probably being said circa 1992 when vinyl sales were dying out in favour of tapes and CDs too. |
|
|
|
|
24th January 2016, 09:11 AM
Post
#106
|
|
 🔥🚀🔥
Joined: 30 August 2010
Posts: 74,767 User: 11,746
            |
the chart has always been biased to 15 year olds anyway, it's them that are most likely to buy and listen to current chart music.
|
|
|
|
|
24th January 2016, 09:33 AM
Post
#107
|
|
|
Radical Pink Troll
Joined: 11 March 2006
Posts: 26,627 User: 177
 |
I think the issue is probably that streaming services are one of the only places 15 year olds are getting exposure to music these days. The chart remains static because it's easier to listen to chart playlists. We're also going through Winter where, once one of the busiest times for releases, it's now empty of artists releasing for some reason.
|
|
|
|
|
24th January 2016, 10:12 AM
Post
#108
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
Another question then - is streaming increasing or decreasing the variety of music you listen to?
If the former, how come it is not being reflected in acceleration of chart turnover? |
|
|
|
|
24th January 2016, 11:03 AM
Post
#109
|
|
|
Yes, it's me.
Joined: 4 November 2009
Posts: 19,829 User: 9,885
  |
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jan 24 2016, 07:51 AM) Why do people stream songs, anyway? For me, it's only a once-off to check out new songs. If I discover one I like, I'll buy it, and therefore have it permanently available on my iPod. For me, that's far more convenient than having to stream it every time I want to hear it. It's cheaper (ie free). For home listening it's just as convenient as any other means - ie. iTunes, cd, other mp3 players. There's thousands of albums that I might be interested in but not interested enough to purchase - ie, all of David Bowie's ones at the moment. |
|
|
|
|
24th January 2016, 11:04 AM
Post
#110
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 19 December 2015
Posts: 20,102 User: 22,776
 |
You can go on about the charts being biased to 15 year olds but in some cases 15 year olds are the ones keeping the chart alive
|
|
|
|
|
24th January 2016, 11:09 AM
Post
#111
|
|
|
Yes, it's me.
Joined: 4 November 2009
Posts: 19,829 User: 9,885
|
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jan 24 2016, 10:12 AM) Another question then - is streaming increasing or decreasing the variety of music you listen to? If the former, how come it is not being reflected in acceleration of chart turnover? Because the answers two those two questions are not always related. The first question relates to me and my listening habits - you can't infer the behavior of the population based on a sample of one. The answer to the first question is yes. From a statistical point of view because people who are into a wide variety of music will probably not stream a song they like enough to effect that charts, and all the other people who are also into a wide variety of music are probably listening to a variety of different songs for any of this to have any effect on the charts, this has no effect. Where as teen age pop lovers will be hammering the latest pop songs and not much else. This post has been edited by Colm: 24th January 2016, 11:10 AM |
|
|
|
|
24th January 2016, 11:56 AM
Post
#112
|
|
|
You don't have to be fabulous to be good
Joined: 10 March 2008
Posts: 9,918 User: 5,591
  |
I don't really know about Spotify but my Apple account allows me to download all the songs and put them on ipod/iPhone.
|
|
|
|
|
24th January 2016, 12:27 PM
Post
#113
|
|
|
BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 29 January 2010
Posts: 1,288 User: 10,540 
|
Talking bout downloading songs and listening offline are those counted towards the charts?
|
|
|
|
|
24th January 2016, 12:29 PM
Post
#114
|
|
|
BuzzJack Platinum Member
Joined: 4 October 2014
Posts: 5,610 User: 21,265
|
Nobody illegally downloading MP3s anymore then?
|
|
|
|
|
24th January 2016, 12:34 PM
Post
#115
|
|
|
BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 29 January 2010
Posts: 1,288 User: 10,540
|
QUOTE(ML Hammer95 @ Jan 24 2016, 12:29 PM) Nobody illegally downloading MP3s anymore then? you would think nobody would in the streaming age but I read that illegal downloads went up last year, maybe they were all Adele's 25 |
|
|
|
|
24th January 2016, 12:40 PM
Post
#116
|
|
|
BuzzJack Platinum Member
Joined: 4 October 2014
Posts: 5,610 User: 21,265
|
QUOTE(girl_from_oz @ Jan 24 2016, 12:34 PM) you would think nobody would in the streaming age but I read that illegal downloads went up last year, maybe they were all Adele's 25 I still do, as I haven't got round to getting Spotify yet. Most of my circle of friends rely on Spotify now however.
|
|
|
|
|
24th January 2016, 12:41 PM
Post
#117
|
|
|
Yes, it's me.
Joined: 4 November 2009
Posts: 19,829 User: 9,885
|
Not everything is available on Spotify. There's plenty of stuff from 90s dance which seems to only be available in sub-standard version.
KLF stuff isn't there. Also Voodoo Ray from A Guy Called Gerald is only available in some HAC09 version. This post has been edited by Colm: 24th January 2016, 12:42 PM |
|
|
|
|
24th January 2016, 12:45 PM
Post
#118
|
|
|
You don't have to be fabulous to be good
Joined: 10 March 2008
Posts: 9,918 User: 5,591
|
I mean I have a paid streaming subscription and it allows me to download songs!
|
|
|
|
|
24th January 2016, 01:10 PM
Post
#119
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 22 December 2009
Posts: 30,565 User: 10,275
   |
The most popular songs are even more popular because of streaming but on the other hand, also variety increases via word of mouth, playlists and social media. If I share a song by Jeremih, 15 of my friends might listen to it on Spotify and it all affects the charts. Those people would NEVER buy it
This post has been edited by SKOB: 24th January 2016, 01:12 PM |
|
|
|
|
24th January 2016, 02:24 PM
Post
#120
|
|
|
BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 1 January 2016
Posts: 907 User: 22,819
 |
Right now albums are only having a tiny fraction of their sales dictated by streaming, in the UK anyway. Over in the States, however, it's out of control. A few weeks ago Adele's 25 "sold" more than 55,000 copies purely from people streaming "Hello". And last week BBTM by The Weekend sold around 39,000 copies, but only 13,114 were from actual purchases. Whilst streaming has now pretty much taken over the singles market, is the albums market next?
|
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 12th May 2024, 11:08 PM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
