Printable version of thread
Click here to view this topic in its original format
BuzzJack Music Forum _ UK Charts _ Do music charts still have a place?
Posted by: MollyJanet 22nd February 2021, 12:31 PM
I've grown up in the UK during a time when we had a weekly chart rundown of the Top 40 singles and a weekly TV show called 'Top of the Pops'. Saturday mornings used to have it's own chart show with the latest videos. Over the years there seems to be have been quite a decline in both, not to say they don't exist at all now but in a much less noticeable format or presence.
There used to be such a fuss made about what position a song was at and who was going to make the number 1 slot that week, and the Christmas number 1 was a highly contested spot (apparently). This was coupled with both single and album sales in their respective charts. So my question is, are the charts still relevant and do they have any influence anymore?
Personally I think they don't so much because of the way people now listen to music through streaming and downloads. I may be completely wrong on that but I don't see people in their droves flocking to the local music store to buy the latest album or single by their favorite artisit. I used to love going through all the vinyl albums and still do in the retro stores but it seems to more of a nostalgic trip now.
Posted by: T Boy 22nd February 2021, 06:51 PM
They’re not really relevant to me anymore. I’m not interested in most of what is in the top 40 these days and sometimes I think it’s my age and everyone warned me that would happen and perhaps it is in a way. But I work with teenagers every day and I’m not sure the charts are relevant to them either. They don’t know who’s no.1 and they don’t seem interested in many artists. The ones who are a lot more interested in artists tend to be into retro music. I’ve had so many conversations with them about the best songs by Queen, Oasis or the Killers.
I think perhaps the absence of a show like Top Of The Pops or a Saturday morning kids show has lessened the interest of young people in the charts. When I was younger not that many people listened to the top 40 but everyone knew who was no.1 because we all watched TOTP on a Friday night.
I’m also not sure what charts are supposed to represent with added streaming. Playlists and lazy listening seems to have taken over and it upsets me that many posters on here just accept this. I get the feeling the charts don’t fully represent what’s popular anymore.
Posted by: Coldman 22nd February 2021, 11:16 PM
Can a moderator please move this thread to UK Charts please? 
The charts still mean something I think but yes all the new chart rules since about 2015 make it a bit less clear cut as it used to be I think.
Posted by: Sour Candy 23rd February 2021, 09:36 AM
I think they represent what's popular BETTER than before as songs don't have a shelf life any more? Anything from Fleetwood Mac to hyperpop can chart now.
Posted by: Mangø 23rd February 2021, 10:18 AM
I still follow the charts but I'd say they're less relevant than ever before, not just to me but to the general public. In the days when people went out to buy music physically they'd be much more invested in the charts but now that people stream music they care less about what's number one or top ten or top forty or whatever. The fact that there are less music shows on TV has also contributed to this - I used to love watching TOTP or CD:UK or Live & Kicking or The Chart Show, but now we have nothing like that. I really miss TOTP in particular - imagine a show that millions of people tuned into every week with performances from the biggest chart stars and which ran down the entire top forty. No wonder people aren't interested in the charts any more. Or maybe it's the other way round, it's because people aren't interested in the chart that shows like TOTP were failing, I don't know?
I've just re-read what I've written and I've basically just paraphrased the first two posts 
but yeah the charts are much less relevant than they ever were. We still need the charts though, they still measure and represent *something*, it's just hard to fully identify what that something is.
Posted by: JulianT 23rd February 2021, 10:28 AM
I think the charts do still have a place but inevitably they aren't as big a deal as they once were. If you look at the consumption of the songs near the top of the chart they only represent a tiny proportion of overall consumption. In the past they represented a much bigger proportion, but that's largely because what you could buy and listen to was much more restricted. Top of the Pops was popular because you needed to watch it to be introduced to the new acts, particularly if you wanted to see them and not just hear them on the radio.
I think measuring streaming is not without its problems but overall the fact that people really need to want to listen to your song for it to do well does actually make the charts more rather than less representative. I agree with Sour Candy that the lack of shelf life also helps. At the same time there's so much being listened to that isn't making the charts and so many people who aren't even hearing or caring what's in the charts but that's no bad thing really - that's just a symptom of better technology and more choice.
I agree some good things have been lost compared to, say, 30 years ago, but overall I would still rather be alive today.
Posted by: AcerBen 23rd February 2021, 10:48 AM
People have been having this debate for 20 odd years now. The general public is less interested in the drama of the weekly chart, but there's still some awareness of what's doing well by those who are interested in new music. TOTP might no longer be on, but the various radio chart shows probably get about 5 million, and most people who listen to Radio 1 or Capital on a daily basis would probably be able to have a decent stab at telling you who is currently high in the charts.
And it's still a useful tool to the music industry and the artists. So it still has a place.
Posted by: Bjork 23rd February 2021, 10:49 AM
but is streaming to blame? I think it's ages since people really cared and
the general lack of interest certainly predates streaming
Posted by: awardinary 23rd February 2021, 10:53 AM
On a completely unrelated matter, Bjork, can you explain why Radiohead are in your signature.
Posted by: coi 23rd February 2021, 10:56 AM
I don't know, but it's a great choice!
Posted by: Houdini 23rd February 2021, 11:04 AM
The individual components of the charts are interesting but mixing sales and streaming together on the main chart as if they are the exact same thing is where the problems start. When you see the sales report apart from a few exceptions all you'll see is something like "Song x is at number 6 (32,417 sales)" and of course not all 32,417 sales would be paid for but they don't tell you how much of that is streaming. Even when they do give streaming figures they'll more often than not just give the number of chart sales that it equated to which means you would still have to rack your brain to work out how often a song was played during the week instead of breaking down the raw figures for each format that the song is on.
Throwing ACR into the mix is what has really fucked the charts up the most imo, it's made things even more complicated than they already were and something that is supposed to be for fun or a hobby shouldn't be complicated. It used to be fun years ago to see which artists were releasing new music at the same time and trying to outdo one another in the chart but it feels like we don't get to see that anymore.
Posted by: Bjork 23rd February 2021, 11:09 AM
hahaha just love the song
the other weekend I taught myself how to play it on guitar, learnt the lyrics,
so I found a new appreciation for the song <3
Posted by: vibe 23rd February 2021, 11:27 AM
I work in a school and the younger generation , my nieces / nephews could not care less what is in the charts. They never speak about it either , thye get to learn the songs that are rinsed on radio.
Posted by: chartjack2 23rd February 2021, 11:41 AM
The charts will always “exist” because people will always consume music in some format. It’s not their job to matter, it’s their job to reflect that public consumption as objectively as possible.
Posted by: No Sleeep 23rd February 2021, 11:57 AM
Throwing ACR into the mix is what has really fucked the charts up the most imo, it's made things even more complicated than they already were and something that is supposed to be for fun or a hobby shouldn't be complicated. It used to be fun years ago to see which artists were releasing new music at the same time and trying to outdo one another in the chart but it feels like we don't get to see that anymore.
Yeah, it’s a difficult one. No amount of streams are the same as one sale, and continuing to call them “sales” is a bit ridiculous and kind of disrespectful to people who actually sold millions. It is a different era but the “sales” we’re seeing now with so many songs going multi-platinum when you had huge 00s hits like Toxic and Hung Up that barely scraped platinum, it’s not a great representation.
Posted by: Tawdry Hepburn 23rd February 2021, 12:46 PM
I feel like the only time most people in terms of the wider public care or acknowledge the charts is when a chart record/achievement gets widely reported, for example something like Captain Tom getting the #1 on his 100th birthday or when Wham! and Mariah recently got the #1 after so many years.
Posted by: AcerBen 23rd February 2021, 12:54 PM
the general lack of interest certainly predates streaming
I think it's had an impact on long-term chart-watchers, and some who were getting to that crossover age where they stop enjoying chart music anyway, but I don't think it's had a huge impact on the wider public. They're not interested in the technical details of how the chart works. Most wouldn't even be able to tell you the difference between the Radio 1 chart and the Big Top 40.
Posted by: AcerBen 23rd February 2021, 12:55 PM
I agree, but that isn't something that's only happened recently.
Posted by: T Boy 23rd February 2021, 06:24 PM
I disagree. I think it’s affected by passive listening to playlists more than anyone will admit but even regardless, it’s only representing a certain demographic. I don’t stream much music, I listen to CDs, vinyl, etc. so my consumption isn’t fairly represented and I’m not the only person who’ll be doing this. Plus with rules like ACR and the three track rule, the charts are distorted even this way. Most people don’t know why long running top 10 hits suddenly drop to low end top 30 after 10 weeks.
When the chart was sales only, everything was pretty fair game. I’m not asking for streaming to go now it’s here but it has made the chart less interesting and actually less important.
Posted by: JosephStyles 23rd February 2021, 06:41 PM
The younger generation definitely get more of a say nowadays and, to be fair, they were the ones who missed out before. Younger people have less disposable income to spend on music - I know I didn't buy as much as I'd have loved to when I was young because my pocket money could only get me so many CDs / downloads. I don't think the charts have ever been a completely level playing field across all age groups and there's little that can be done to change that.
Music charts definitely have a place though the general public interest is lower than it used to be. That doesn't mean there's no interest at all and I don't believe streaming has anything to do with it (it's been the case at least since I started following the charts closely, which was ~2011). That said, stan Twitter loves following the charts and they even seem clued up on ACR rules! I don't think ACR is offputting to anyone who isn't a close chart follower - the average Joe won't know what it is and probably won't have been following closely enough in the first place to notice it was hanging around the top 10 for weeks on end. If they wanted to know, there are explanations in the OCC chart rules.
Passive listening on playlists has a big impact on the chart but there's always been outside factors that can help or hinder songs. Stock in shops, differing formats (some songs would have been hindered by one CD format when others had two, for example), price reductions (notably seen in the 59p iTunes reductions) and radio playlists are big factors that influenced the sales-only charts. Of course you'd still have to convince someone to part with their cash for a song and that's why a sale will always count for more than a stream, but there's clearly something to be said for a song that is able to get millions of streams every week - that's not entirely "passive playlists"!
Posted by: Chez Wombat 23rd February 2021, 06:57 PM
I think while they still give a decent indicator on current music trends, most of the main interest comes from one-off special events like Captain Tom's single and the Christmas charts and even then it's a lot more limited. Not really surprising - coupled with there being so much more music out there than there had been in the past, streaming services and social media being the preferred platform to radio for younger people and the very slow nature of the chart and complex rules of ACR making it less accessible to the average person just adds up to a decreased relevance.
I say it all the time, but one thing they really struggle with (at least in this country) is representing a wide range of music. While pop, dance and hip hop or some combination of the three are still reliable sellers, there are many artists that get huge buzz from online music critics, yet don't chart. I'm thinking Haim in particular who are a recognisable name, but had no top 40 hits last era and when I look at a list of critic-rated top songs of the year, there's quite a few that haven't charted unless they have a distinctly mainstream sound. I suppose this isn't a new thing and has only increased in the 21st Century, but I do feel the charts have got really bad at representing indie music.
Posted by: Sour Candy 24th February 2021, 05:50 AM
I don't think the Average Joe mentioned on the previous page has ever know which songs are top 5 hits and which are not. I would assume that being #1 has been a bigger deal in the past though.
Posted by: Iz 💀 24th February 2021, 07:03 AM
Yup, though generally people who are really into music will be into the big indie artists just as much if not more than the big pop artists (based on how well the likes of Sufjan trend whenever they release new material), the numbers that streaming requires dwarfs out indie artists when in the past, the majority of indie listeners would have made a sale, certainly the majority of current big chart pop listeners wouldn't.
How do you draw the line between engaged listeners and casual listens? Because while the former is subjective, that's the sort of thing, fandoms and passion, that drives interest. No easy answers. I'd like the chart to take notice of trending (music-related) topics and more punishing ACR, but otherwise, if you want people to care about it, it needs to be better for people's schedules and made a bigger deal of by artists - and as long as they're getting the streaming plays and reaching everyone interested in their musical niche through algorithms, I'm not sure as many do, certainly less than before.
Posted by: T Boy 24th February 2021, 08:53 AM
Music charts definitely have a place though the general public interest is lower than it used to be. That doesn't mean there's no interest at all and I don't believe streaming has anything to do with it (it's been the case at least since I started following the charts closely, which was ~2011). That said, stan Twitter loves following the charts and they even seem clued up on ACR rules! I don't think ACR is offputting to anyone who isn't a close chart follower - the average Joe won't know what it is and probably won't have been following closely enough in the first place to notice it was hanging around the top 10 for weeks on end. If they wanted to know, there are explanations in the OCC chart rules.
Passive listening on playlists has a big impact on the chart but there's always been outside factors that can help or hinder songs. Stock in shops, differing formats (some songs would have been hindered by one CD format when others had two, for example), price reductions (notably seen in the 59p iTunes reductions) and radio playlists are big factors that influenced the sales-only charts. Of course you'd still have to convince someone to part with their cash for a song and that's why a sale will always count for more than a stream, but there's clearly something to be said for a song that is able to get millions of streams every week - that's not entirely "passive playlists"!
I think it’s incorrect to say the younger generation missed out before. Average pocket money would have been enough to buy a single every week back in the 90s and many downloads once they came in. Where it’s true that older people had more money, they were less likely to buy singles and certainly not the ones at the top of the charts. I remember Saturday morning at the shops with my parents and HMV and Virgin were a massive treat. I’d buy a single every few weeks and so would my brother and sister. My mum and dad bought singles but not as often. What I meant by level playing field is that much older artists could usually snag a top 40 hit by appealing to grandparents whereas now there’s no way that could happen. Charts have always leaned towards the younger generation but the difference is now, it’s just leaning towards the passive listeners.
You mention not being able to buy all the music you wanted before streaming-well that was how life was. If you were going to buy a single, you really loved it and playing it at home was a proper event. You appreciated that CD so much. But music has become much more disposable and I do believe the charts are mainly being affected by people who don’t really care about music. This obviously isn’t the case for everyone but it’s a clear downside of the streaming era for me and as a result it’s made the chart less interesting and a bit pointless.
Posted by: AcerBen 24th February 2021, 09:48 AM
When the chart was sales only, everything was pretty fair game. I’m not asking for streaming to go now it’s here but it has made the chart less interesting and actually less important.
Yes. Fleetwood Mac is the exception - and they're only there because of young people anyway. It was the physical era when anything could chart, whether it was the latest boyband or indie band, or Cliff Richard or Daniel O'Donnell.
Posted by: AcerBen 24th February 2021, 09:53 AM
Music charts definitely have a place though the general public interest is lower than it used to be. That doesn't mean there's no interest at all and I don't believe streaming has anything to do with it (it's been the case at least since I started following the charts closely, which was ~2011). That said, stan Twitter loves following the charts and they even seem clued up on ACR rules! I don't think ACR is offputting to anyone who isn't a close chart follower - the average Joe won't know what it is and probably won't have been following closely enough in the first place to notice it was hanging around the top 10 for weeks on end. If they wanted to know, there are explanations in the OCC chart rules.
Passive listening on playlists has a big impact on the chart but there's always been outside factors that can help or hinder songs. Stock in shops, differing formats (some songs would have been hindered by one CD format when others had two, for example), price reductions (notably seen in the 59p iTunes reductions) and radio playlists are big factors that influenced the sales-only charts. Of course you'd still have to convince someone to part with their cash for a song and that's why a sale will always count for more than a stream, but there's clearly something to be said for a song that is able to get millions of streams every week - that's not entirely "passive playlists"!
The problem I have with "curated" playlists, compared to any other sort of variable like airplay, promotion, stock, price or whatever, is that they have a *direct* impact on the chart. i.e. if you've just put on a playlist in the background and not bothered enough to skip anything, you are contributing to the chart. It's barely any more meaningful that including airplay.
Whereas before, however you might have been manipulated to do it, you still had to make an active decision to part with your money and buy a song for it to register.
Posted by: gooddelta 24th February 2021, 10:41 AM
It's ironic that now younger people DO arguably contribute more to the charts than ever before, the trend of novelty songs and music actually aimed at children charting (aside from the odd exception, like Baby Shark) has now evaporated. Are children under 10 for example now just listening to music aimed at audiences way older than them, or are they consuming 'kids music' in some other way?
I know not many kids did, but I used to spend pretty much ALL of my pocket money on music between the ages of about 11-14. I think I got something like £5 a week overall, and would generally buy one or two singles while the rest would be saved up for the next Now or Hits compilation or more rarely an artist album - I really had to love the act to buy those at that age, and tended more to wait for birthdays/Christmas - if there was no singles out that I wanted that week.
Posted by: Smint 24th February 2021, 10:41 AM
I think one of the clearest indications that the charts were losing relevance in the streaming era was when Drake's 'One Dance' had 15 weeks at no.1 and like no-one cared and it had extremely little media attention. Compared with Bryan Adams, Wet Wet Wet or even Rihanna's long tenure at the top previously.
Posted by: Liam.k. 24th February 2021, 10:47 AM
I'd say the former given how many kids, even under 10, are on TikTok.
Posted by: WhoOdyssey 24th February 2021, 10:56 AM
Wouldn't the "kids novelty hits" like Baby Shark, Bob the Builder etc be more aimed at under 5's though - who probably aren't on TikTok
Posted by: coi 24th February 2021, 11:16 AM
I think the 'kids music' is often being consumed on YouTube in particular, the OCC's video streaming chart has stuff like Baby Shark, Gummy Bear, Crazy Frog etc permanently in there.
Posted by: Liam.k. 24th February 2021, 11:17 AM
I have no idea who is actually listening to it but I don't think any kids nowadays are listening to 'Gummy Bear' or 'Crazy Frog', are they?
Posted by: WhoOdyssey 24th February 2021, 11:18 AM
Oh that's very true, there's loads of odd compilations with *millions* of views!
Posted by: dan :: G 24th February 2021, 11:18 AM
let's not forget we have a prime example of "kids music" right at the top of the chart currently in "Drivers License" - of course it has appeal to other age groups too but I suspect it's being primarily consumed by the teen/tween market.
Posted by: Bjork 24th February 2021, 11:32 AM
Id say Baby Shark is music for babies rather than kids, for ages 1-5
Posted by: AcerBen 24th February 2021, 01:01 PM
Baby Shark is a bit of an odd example but if you're talking more about manufactured pop that used to be aimed at children (like S Club 7, Lolly, B*Witched), it is odd that there's so little of that.
But I think kids (as in under 14) aren't listening to music as much as they used to. The kids I know don't seem to be that interested in it. They've all got iPads and other stuff to keep them entertained. Surely it's the 14-21 sort of age range that is really deciding the charts.
Posted by: fiesta 24th February 2021, 08:17 PM
The charts aren't as popular anymore because social media is the new thing that entertains the youth of the day. Many years ago before the internet or even computers THE thing to do was buy records and listen / watch the chart show for teenagers.
Powered by Invision Power Board
© Invision Power Services