Latest Site News

[Gambo]

And with some acts, it does still form a significant part of the decision-making process for labels as to whether or not a certain artist should be retained on their books. Sales figures behind the positions are of course important too, as are tallies for albums, but the real 'impact' still comes with a higher peak on a weekly chart.

With a bona fide band like The Stone Roses however, I rather doubt peak chart positions for their singles are that relevant, at least not to whether they can get signed and stay with a label, as they'd always get picked up by somebody! They've secured their long-term musical and cultural importance, which was never that derived from their chart performances anyway; admittedly they had a string of instant Top 10 hits in 1989-'90 and another in '94, but it was a clear early example of an act having built up enough cult cred to have a very committed fanbase, who would always buy anything released by their idols upon release, probably on all available formats, as a complete archive of all related material. That was often enough, especially in periods of slacker overall sales, to give rise to high peaks on their first week, but precipitous declines thereafter, as beyond the core fans, few were interested in buying the singles. With the Roses, I imagine that more casual appreciaters of their output would always buy the parent albums. Yet there were still enough hardcore followers to still buy up a few thousand copies of songs that were two or three years old when they finally got issued as singles - "I Wanna Be Adored" and "Waterfall" made the Top 20 in '91 and 40 in '92 respectively, and surely most takers must've had a copy of the '89-issued "The Stone Roses" LP by then which contained those tracks?!

I presume the only reason a band like them would release singles at all is as a promotional tool to get their new content noticed, and hopefully translate into album sales, live gig ticket sales, and a generally good reception from critics that will ensure their reputation remains high among those who to them matter. And of course it is still a standard tool used by labels to get their acts 'out there'. Interestingly, it's probably roughly the same folk who bought "Fool's Gold", "One Love" etc who are buying "All For One" and "Beautiful Thing"now! They're still collecting, except they'll have a digital copy now as well as physical, as and when the recent singles are issued on CD or vinyl.

It's just that with the increasing part streaming plays in the charts, big first-week sales splashes aren't so likely to attain a Top 10 or even 20 placing nowadays, and I suspect companies have now taken that on board. Fans of older established acts who are older now themselves are still likely to buy, possibly on physical as a priority, but less-likely to have assimilated regular streaming, so streaming won't figure that much in any assessment that is made of such acts and their future commercial viability. Plus, as Graham rightly says, it makes so little dosh that it's not that relevant anyway, other than just as a useful barometer of overall popularity among the core youth listening market, whose preferred acts tend to return very healthy streaming tallies.