 |
  |
| Should the UK Top 100 introduce a recurrent rule? |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
  6th May 2016, 05:29 PM
Post
#1
|
|
 🔥🚀🔥
Joined: 30 August 2010
Posts: 74,584 User: 11,746 
               |
It's well known on here that the US Billboard Hot 100 is slow af - but the chart compilers do at least try to keep things fresh by kicking old songs out the chart when they drop out of the top 50. (I think 20 weeks or more counts as 'old'). Would you get behind the OCC introducing a similar rule for the UK chart or should it be left as it is?
I'm quite conflicted in my opinion, as I'd like to see more fresh songs make the top 100, but then newer songs' chart runs would be inconsistent with amazingly long chart runs of songs like Thinking Out Loud and it wouldn't be a proper reflection of the 100 most popular songs of the week. Note that this rule would not change anything in the top 50, songs would still be able to have ridiculously long top 40 runs. |
 |
 
|
|
6th May 2016, 06:26 PM
Post
#2
|
|
 BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 12 March 2006
Posts: 2,145 User: 194
|
I don't think its the best solution. Id rather radio and Spotify had quicker refreshing of their playlists
|
|
|
|
|
6th May 2016, 07:00 PM
Post
#3
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,851 User: 17,376
  |
the charts stopped reflecting a wide range of music tastes when they became more-or-less streaming-only these days, so totally in favour of anything that freshens it up. The US charts used to be a laughing stock, nowadays the UK charts are far worse because they are streaming-only, which is, as I bang on about, the same people playing the same records week after week to the exclusion of everyone else that consumes music in other ways.
Weighting the charts, as in the US, to include data from various sources is preferable to a chart where nothing happens for long periods of time, and new music is a trickle, or else a superstar avalanche of tracks taking over every time a new album is released. Neither does anything for new music and veteran acts music. If there were still a Top Of The Pops, it would get cancelled within 6 weeks from repetition and everyone moaning about how boring it is 
|
|
|
|
|
6th May 2016, 07:12 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
I just had to see your face to feel alive
Joined: 22 February 2010
Posts: 6,910 User: 10,676
  |
A top 100 is a top 100. I think it's ridiculous to throw out songs just because they've been on the charts for a certain of amount of weeks. If they're still in there then they should be.
|
|
|
|
|
6th May 2016, 07:16 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Former iconic poster with no consistent posting style
Pronouns: Don't take em seriously tbh
Joined: 20 June 2014 Posts: 20,582 User: 21,005 
 |
Hmm this is interesting! Agreeing with what Dan says about old songs lasting forever in the chart (which a lot of people agree with as well it would seem) but it doesn't really seem "fair" if you know what I mean? I'm finding it hard to pick a side here
|
|
|
|
|
6th May 2016, 07:18 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 4 November 2013
Posts: 30,552 User: 20,053
   |
I wouldn't like this. I don't even really care for tracks outside the top 40 anyway so even if they were all brand spanking new I doubt I would listen to them out of curiosity.
|
|
|
|
|
6th May 2016, 08:04 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 3,445 User: 366
|
QUOTE(danG @ May 6 2016, 05:29 PM)  It's well known on here that the US Billboard Hot 100 is slow af - but the chart compilers do at least try to keep things fresh by kicking old songs out the chart when they drop out of the top 50. (I think 20 weeks or more counts as 'old'). Would you get behind the OCC introducing a similar rule for the UK chart or should it be left as it is? A few months ago Billboard introduced a further rule to remove older songs from the Hot 100. Not only are records below number 50 removed from the chart after 20 weeks but a second rule now applies I'm quite conflicted in my opinion, as I'd like to see more fresh songs make the top 100, but then newer songs' chart runs would be inconsistent with amazingly long chart runs of songs like Thinking Out Loud and it wouldn't be a proper reflection of the 100 most popular songs of the week. Note that this rule would not change anything in the top 50, songs would still be able to have ridiculously long top 40 runs. that removes tracks that are below number 25 after 52 weeks. Records can, at the discretion of the Hot 100 Chart Manager, be allowed to remain on the Hot 100 if there are special circumstances. Personally I prefer to see an actual Top 100 in proper sales order with no exclusions. Perhaps we should look to the ARIA compiled Australian chart rather than the Billboard Hot 100. The ARIA chart seems to get the balance right with a decent amount of new entries each week and the top 40 seems a lot fresher with fewer records spending multiple months on the chart. What is it that ARIA does right (given their chart is also a mix of paid-for sales and streaming sales to the same ratio) that the OCC doesn't? One thing that stands out with the ARIA chart is the relative lack of multiple hits by one or two acts which is one trend that tends to clog up the UK chart. At one time (when the ARIA chart didn't include streams) record labels had to not only actively register a track for it to appear on the singles chart but they had to also choose a maximum of three variants of a download version of a song and sales from any other variant / version of that track would be ignored. In addition none of those variants could include a Now-type compilation album. I don't know what has changed since streaming data started to be included in November 2014 but however ARIA do it, the inclusion of streaming hasn't brought the chart to a complete standstill. The chart rules section on the ARIA website seems to have been removed so I don't know if there are still restrictions on how many versions of a song can be counted towards a chart position and whether this may have been extended to streams. The current ARIA Australian Singles chart: http://www.ariacharts.com.au/charts/singles-chart |
|
|
|
|
7th May 2016, 08:06 AM
Post
#8
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 November 2015
Posts: 33,291 User: 22,665
  |
what about caping the number of times that streaming a song counts for the charts as alternative? say it only counts for the charts the first 100 times that a person streams a song for instance, that would make the charts faster I think
|
|
|
|
|
7th May 2016, 09:40 AM
Post
#9
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 22 December 2009
Posts: 30,367 User: 10,275
   |
I don't think ordinary people (who are not huge fans of a certain artist) listen to the same song more than 100 times.
|
|
|
|
|
7th May 2016, 09:48 AM
Post
#10
|
|
 Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
perhaps there should be a recurrent rule for streaming only...
|
|
|
|
|
7th May 2016, 09:53 AM
Post
#11
|
|
|
c:
Joined: 12 March 2014
Posts: 13,153 User: 20,692
  |
QUOTE(vidcapper @ May 7 2016, 10:48 AM) perhaps there should be a recurrent rule for streaming only... This perhaps could be a semi-good idea. Perhaps after X weeks, 200 streams = 1 sale instead of 100 to speed things up a bit. It would look a bit unfair but not as bad as completely getting rid of songs after a certain amount of time. I think streams weighting should be decreased anyway though imo, I'd adore a chart where Hold Up, Middle and Hair were getting a couple weeks top 10 over Girls Like, Lush Life and Faded still 
|
|
|
|
|
7th May 2016, 10:03 AM
Post
#12
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 22 December 2009
Posts: 30,367 User: 10,275
|
btw this week the longest running song has 36 weeks in top 75 so longevity is not that huge of a problem is it?
The more people will use streaming services, the more songs will be streamed. |
|
|
|
|
7th May 2016, 10:39 AM
Post
#13
|
|
|
BuzzJack Platinum Member
Pronouns: He/Him
Joined: 28 July 2013 Posts: 5,076 User: 19,614
  |
QUOTE(Robbie @ May 7 2016, 04:04 AM) Personally I prefer to see an actual Top 100 in proper sales order with no exclusions. Perhaps we should look to the ARIA compiled Australian chart rather than the Billboard Hot 100. The ARIA chart seems to get the balance right with a decent amount of new entries each week and the top 40 seems a lot fresher with fewer records spending multiple months on the chart. What is it that ARIA does right (given their chart is also a mix of paid-for sales and streaming sales to the same ratio) that the OCC doesn't? One key difference is that for ARIA, the ratio is 175:1 (I think) streams to sales instead of 100:1 (ARIA also haven't started counting Tidal streams though that's not mattered until recently). There are probably socioeconomic factors to deal with it, I think the main thing is that the UK has a large population, but unlike the US, doesn't have the same fractured marketplace. The Billboard Hot 100 is always home to dozens of rap & country tracks that are of little interest outside their demographics, whereas most of the UK chart is probably consumed by a similar group of people. The 'top 50' effect on US Spotify doesn't seem nearly as drastic there and I think it's because less people would be inclined to listen to everything in the chart. I also think the big thing that slows things down is that streaming is still growing, so there'll always be a sizeable portion of people who are just getting started with streaming. People just getting started would be more likely to stream established hits that everyone else is sick of. I feel like a similar thing happened with digital sales, but now that most people who buy digital music have been doing so for years, songs are having quicker runs there. |
|
|
|
|
9th May 2016, 07:02 AM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Poet and Storyteller
Joined: 11 March 2006
Posts: 6,753 User: 166
  |
Keep the "singles" chart (if there are singles these days), but stop broadcasting it on the radio. Instead, broadcast the album chart top 40 (one song from each) which is more varied, moves quicker and is more indicative of what people are buying week on week.
Although I look at the top 100 every week on BJ, it means nothing to me. Mostly seems to be made up of groups with a name made of a random series of capital letters and punctuation marks featuring another act made of a random series of capital letters and punctuation marks. |
|
|
|
|
9th May 2016, 08:10 AM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(richie @ May 9 2016, 08:02 AM) Although I look at the top 100 every week on BJ, it means nothing to me. Mostly seems to be made up of groups with a name made of a random series of capital letters and punctuation marks featuring another act made of a random series of capital letters and punctuation marks.  |
|
|
|
|
9th May 2016, 08:11 AM
Post
#16
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 22 December 2009
Posts: 30,367 User: 10,275
|
Like NEU!
Or The Artist Formerly Known as Prince Or UB40 Those were the days This post has been edited by SKOB: 9th May 2016, 08:19 AM |
|
|
|
|
9th May 2016, 08:25 AM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Fire
Joined: 8 November 2009
Posts: 9,255 User: 9,912
|
QUOTE(Atonement @ May 6 2016, 08:12 PM) A top 100 is a top 100. I think it's ridiculous to throw out songs just because they've been on the charts for a certain of amount of weeks. If they're still in there then they should be. 100% agreed. |
|
|
|
|
9th May 2016, 10:22 AM
Post
#18
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,676 User: 3,272
     |
QUOTE(SKOB @ May 9 2016, 09:11 AM) Like NEU! Or The Artist Formerly Known as Prince Or UB40 Those were the days UB40 wasn't a random combination of letters and numerals. It was a reference to the form required to claim unemployment benefit. |
|
|
|
|
9th May 2016, 10:28 AM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Poet and Storyteller
Joined: 11 March 2006
Posts: 6,753 User: 166
|
Exactly - what is CHVRCHES or FKA Twigs?
|
|
|
|
|
9th May 2016, 10:59 AM
Post
#20
|
|
|
Yes, it's me.
Joined: 4 November 2009
Posts: 19,813 User: 9,885
  |
QUOTE(SKOB @ May 7 2016, 11:03 AM) btw this week the longest running song has 36 weeks in top 75 so longevity is not that huge of a problem is it? The more people will use streaming services, the more songs will be streamed. 36 weeks is quite long in all time terms. |
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 26th April 2024, 06:08 PM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
