Printable version of thread

Posted by: iHype. Mar 4 2017, 06:47 AM

Posted by: vidcapper Mar 4 2017, 06:52 AM

Is that the Spotify chart?

Posted by: iHype. Mar 4 2017, 06:53 AM

yes

Posted by: Bjork Mar 4 2017, 07:05 AM

you cut the picture but he actually has the top 16

Posted by: mdh Mar 4 2017, 07:05 AM

EDsclusive. Lol.

Posted by: vidcapper Mar 4 2017, 07:07 AM

Thanks - my free Spotify sub doesn't seem to let me access it.

Posted by: mdh Mar 4 2017, 07:09 AM

The Spotify charts are a bit messed up right now, they don't update in many places at the right times. Like on Spotify Charts the chart being shown is from the 28th Feb still.

Posted by: iHype. Mar 4 2017, 07:13 AM

Actually, the top 15 took the whole page. I would have to scroll down and leave out #1 to see #16.

Posted by: DiamondHeart Mar 4 2017, 07:31 AM

Oh Jesus, I knew this week was coming but ugh now it's here.

Posted by: SKOB Mar 4 2017, 07:34 AM

What happened to the phrase "people don't listen to albums"

At least 500 000 Brits just did.

Posted by: n4yr Mar 4 2017, 07:47 AM

I managed to edit it into one image with Paint

Posted by: Mart!n Mar 4 2017, 08:40 AM

Good lord I didn't think it be that bad, other new single releases this week... Dead

Posted by: 777666jason Mar 4 2017, 08:44 AM

Hopefully every song is explicit and they have to skip na who am I kidding

In theory though if they skip every ed song they have time to play everything else

Posted by: Mart!n Mar 4 2017, 08:51 AM

Ain't it cheaper buying the album instead of streaming it
I don't mind Ed's music, but this just makes a mockery of the singles chart.

Posted by: PeaceMob Mar 4 2017, 08:54 AM

This is hilarious. Ed domination.

Posted by: Zárate Mar 4 2017, 09:05 AM

This is why, I insist, there should be a rule that if a user streamed more than a certain percentage of tracks per album all those tracks should only count to the album chart.

Posted by: Josh. Mar 4 2017, 09:14 AM

I feel like the ONLY person that doesn't mind the album tracks in the top 40. The only real problem is the name of 'singles chart', in the streaming era, it's much easier for people to just listen to what they like on a mass scale and the charts are reflecting that. There's no denying that these tracks ARE in the top 40 most popular tracks of that week and therefore have a rightful place in the top 40 in my opinion. It may make the charts more boring but they've been dreadfully dull for a few years now and at least they're being accurate (unlike Billboard getting rid of old tracks in the bottom half of their chart). What's the point of having a chart if the compiler is manipulating what can and cannot chart when they feel like it 🤷 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Posted by: Tinasha Mar 4 2017, 09:22 AM

I mean, it's fine for a week, maybe two. But my concern is that this could last for months.

Posted by: Bré Mar 4 2017, 09:23 AM

I agree Josh, if album tracks are individually being streamed more than anything else then why not recognise that (as long as it doesn't mean Lorde misses the top 40 ), and making a rule to stop this would necessarily be somewhat arbitrary. The chart isn't supposed to be exciting, it's supposed to be a list of the most purchased and streamed somgs, which includes songs that aren't 'official singles'.

Posted by: popchartfreak Mar 4 2017, 09:27 AM

It's called an "album". It belongs in the album chart. Streaming rules are pathetic. Stick it in a handy passive streaming-playlist and that's measuring popularity of actual tracks? No it isn't. It's measuring curiosity and passive radio listening.

People do NOT individually choose these tracks, they choose a batch of pre-prepared (or album) tracks, and that includes the streaming charts.

The official singles chart is much less accurate than the sales chart. Always has been. Just wait for christmas again when those songs beloved of teenagers like Jose Feliciano's Feliz Navidad pop in. Yeah, older people have never heard of it either.....

Posted by: danG Mar 4 2017, 09:28 AM

but do you really want to have 10 Ed Sheeran songs clogging up the official top 20 for months? because that is what's going to happen.

Posted by: jazzy_765 Mar 4 2017, 09:35 AM

I hate how the charts have become these days..... I miss the excitement of buying a cd single and going into the shop seeing the chart positions..... the fact that one artist can have a whole album worth of songs in the top 40 singles chart is just ludicrous to me..... it used to be such an achievement to have a 5/6 week number 1 single.... now songs get 10+ weeks getting close to records set by Bryan Adams or wet wet wet like it's a piece of cake...... ridiculous.

Posted by: Bré Mar 4 2017, 09:37 AM

What I want is irrelevant. If that is how people are consuming music in this country for the next few months then yes, that is what should happen.

Posted by: Bjork Mar 4 2017, 09:39 AM

but most people are not going to Spotify and say ph I'm gonna listen to Ed Sheeran's Barcelona
no, they go and listen to the whole album or most of it
so should count for the album charts, not for the singles, and definitely not for both

Posted by: cqmerqn Mar 4 2017, 09:39 AM

He's definitely going to have the top 16 on Friday!

Posted by: Josh. Mar 4 2017, 09:41 AM

Like Bre said, want we want is irrelevant. It's an official chart, not a personal chart. I don't want Rag n Bone Man in the top 10 for four months+ either but if the track is genuinely popular then fair enough. Same with these Ed Sheeran (and Stormzy tracks), it's not like these figures are made up, these songs are being listened to, therefore they are genuinely popular and therefore also deserve a place on an official list of most popular songs of that week, in my opinion.

Posted by: cqmerqn Mar 4 2017, 09:46 AM

Yes that's true BUT people are listening to these Ed songs for the album, not for the songs individually. It belongs to the album chart.

Posted by: Zárate Mar 4 2017, 09:50 AM

Yep, this is my point either. People consume albums in the streaming era listening to all of the songs from them, but that doesn't mean they don't consume albums. We have an album chart for a reason.

Posted by: Hayzayy Mar 4 2017, 09:54 AM

Bad news for new artists or less popular acts. Their songs are going to be overshadowed in the charts and this could result in very very bad news for them. Sad day for music

Posted by: danG Mar 4 2017, 09:55 AM

if people are buying Ed Sheeran album tracks, which they are, then they should definitely count, but it's ridiculous that streams of the album (and lots of people are clearly streaming the entire album) count towards both charts. It should be one or the other.

Posted by: Josh. Mar 4 2017, 09:56 AM

I do get that argument too and the way streams count towards two charts perhaps does sound a little silly but imo, it's the best way to do it without unnecessarily disqualifying songs from the chart. They may have had a huge platform (a massively popular album) as to why they're getting such huge streams but they are genuinely popular tracks. This is a bit of a silly comparison but I can't think of anything better right now (), songs perfomed on shows like X Factor/The Voice also have a huge platform and therefore have success of the back of it. The album here is the huge platform and the songs are receiving massive success because of it. (totally different I know but I hope you get the gist of what I'm trying to say).

Also, I agree that a large amount of these streams are, of course, from listening to the album as a whole but the success of individual tracks on iTunes also proves that they are popular in their own right too. Idk, maybe it's just me but this seems the best way to do it for now, perhaps a way of splitting apart streams from when the tracks are listened to individually or as part of an album may be better but I'm not surr Spotify have that data and this seems like the next best thing for now, for me.

Posted by: danG Mar 4 2017, 10:03 AM

but think about how difficult it will get for new artists to get hit singles, if the chart is constantly took up by entire albums from popular artists due to streaming. It's not healthy for the industry.

clearly no one else will have an effect quite as big as Ed, but it'll still be bad if breaking artists aren't getting the time of day on the charts.

Posted by: vidcapper Mar 4 2017, 10:10 AM

Surely Adele would have, if all her album tracks from '25' had been streamable on release week.

Posted by: Zárate Mar 4 2017, 10:11 AM

I'm not saying any songs should be disqualified. If a person listens to one, two, three, up to 50% of the songs from the album they should be counted in the singles chart but not in the albums chart. However, if a person listens to most, if not the whole, album, it should be counted towards the albums chart, because a person is listening to an album, not to certain songs! This means the album tracks will still chart but only if they are standing out enough to be listened as tracks, not as part of an album.

It's not about me liking or disliking the state of charts either, it's just about of trying to make it a fair play and excluding the double count of streams. They should be counted in one of the charts, not in both.

Posted by: mdh Mar 4 2017, 10:13 AM

Nah, Adele would have had a massive effect but I doubt it'd have been near the size of Ed's - Adele isn't necessarily a streaming artist as much as she is a sales/physicals artist whereas Ed Sheeran has a huge younger fanbase that'll stream the hell out of anything he releases.

Posted by: andibob Mar 4 2017, 10:15 AM

Is that real?! That's impressive!!

Posted by: Iz~ Mar 4 2017, 10:17 AM

The charts' job, in so much as it has a job, need not be super accurate, it should be more important for music that it is regularly breaking new artists and giving them a chance to get their voice heard amongst the noise. It is things like this that have made interest in the charts tail off rapidly.

Thing is, it's not that it's a majority of people that are Ed Sheeran fans, yet because of the way music distribution and listening habits works, the large minority blocks off all else. The large minority of people that are Ed Sheeran fans may be interested in the chart, but (without meaning to pre-judge), most of them probably aren't interested enough in music to care and yet their listening habits block out fans of other music from having representation in the charts meaning that probably the majority of people have no tracks they're particularly interested in. That's not good.

I honestly would say there's going to be a lot of tracks that will be considered to be 'classics' in the future that are never going to chart now because either radio won't play them or they aren't in the Spotify playlists right now but they'll develop a strong and loyal fanbase that'll keep playing them long after this latest bunch of chart-hoggers has been forgotten.

Posted by: T Boy Mar 4 2017, 10:18 AM

Good Lord, the charts are a mess. Can't go back now though, this is what people will have to put up with. I'm just glad I stopped being a chart fanatic years ago. Even my casual glances at the charts on a Friday might stop.

Posted by: mr_pmt Mar 4 2017, 10:52 AM

In theory, is people passively listening to the rest of the album tracks really that different than the large majority of general streams coming from people passively listening through curated playlists?

Posted by: -SCOTT- Mar 4 2017, 10:56 AM

2017. The year that my 21 year obsession with the charts is finally killed.

Posted by: Jack Mar 4 2017, 10:56 AM

I wish the public weren't such sheep and ventured out and listened to other new music, so boring.

Posted by: Bjork Mar 4 2017, 11:08 AM

from Minty:
But he did sell a whopping 232k albums in the U.K. yesterday.

Posted by: Bjork Mar 4 2017, 11:10 AM

more from Minty:

He has 16 singles in the top 28.

He also makes up half of the top 20 singles chart. And guess what is the highest charting album track? That's right, bloody Galway Girl.

Posted by: JosephStyles Mar 4 2017, 11:12 AM

And this is pure sales alone! Incredible.

Posted by: -SCOTT- Mar 4 2017, 11:12 AM

Exactly. Streaming should be able to revolutionise the charts but it has had the opposite effect

Posted by: Bjork Mar 4 2017, 11:14 AM

I'm assuming those 232K sales are CDs and downloads without streams
same for the 16 songs in the top 28, that should be downloads only, imagine when they add streams

Posted by: Grandwicky Mar 4 2017, 11:18 AM

How much did 25 do on the first day again?

Posted by: Hadji Mar 4 2017, 11:20 AM

Selling faster than a regular NOW album. Would be cool if he beat Adele's record but I doubt it. He would have even bigger sales if he released near the Christmas period

Posted by: liamk97 Mar 4 2017, 11:20 AM

FYI, Friday Chart Prediction thread will be up in a sec! 232k in one day is incredible!

Posted by: Hadji Mar 4 2017, 11:23 AM

313k but bare in mind that it was near the Christmas period

Posted by: Lenny Mar 4 2017, 11:28 AM

RIP the UK singles chart. Great for Ed that he's having such success but this is just not an acceptable representation of SINGLES in the UK. They could create a rule to stop this in the singles chart and have a separate tracks chart if they must.

I think the OCC see this as promotion of the chart though!!

Posted by: Davidson Mar 4 2017, 11:33 AM

The charts really are becoming more ridiculous by the day.

I would maybe think it was funny if it was gonna be a one week thing like Beyonce or The Weeknd had. I can see these tracks all being top 40 for months though and stopping other songs from entering.

Posted by: Davidson Mar 4 2017, 11:36 AM

This is also gonna make chart runs look really bloody stupid.

Can just imagine the chart run for 'Chained to the Rhythm' being:

07-05-05-17

even though it will probs sell about 2k less.

Posted by: Doctor Blind Mar 4 2017, 11:53 AM

Like I say, I would introduce a rule that excludes tracks that have <10% contribution from download/physical sales - that would remove all of the album tracks.

Posted by: Zárate Mar 4 2017, 12:15 PM

This is only temporary, what would you do when digital sales fade away completely?

Posted by: Doctor Blind Mar 4 2017, 12:18 PM

Hope that Ed Sheeran stops releasing music.

Well you may have to change it to exclude songs that for instance sell 0 copies, or below a certain threshold like 10, 20 etc. there would be a way around it.

Posted by: Lenny Mar 4 2017, 12:21 PM

The singles chart should be an opt-in chart for nominated tracks by record labels, restricted by certain criteria. It's not rocket science.

Posted by: Mart!n Mar 4 2017, 12:56 PM

100% agree

Posted by: danG Mar 4 2017, 01:02 PM

Not in this case, as the album tracks are actually selling really well on iTunes (all of them are in the top 50 combined). The only way to remove album tracks from the chart is to have nominated singles.

The OCC probably won't do anything though as Ed having his entire album chart in the top 40 is free publicity for the official chart.

Posted by: 777666jason Mar 4 2017, 01:03 PM

To say that they will all be top 40 for months is probably an exaggeration but they are likely to be more than a week

Posted by: Mart!n Mar 4 2017, 01:11 PM

And another thing other artists will probably struggle to release new music, so we are left with Ed Sheeran tracks inside the top 40 for at least a few weeks, and I don't mean forever. Most likely will be seeing the highest new entry like No.48 for example, the week after.

Posted by: PeaceMob Mar 4 2017, 01:22 PM

I think streaming has been fantastic for both singles and album charts, I think it's finally properly reflecting what songs the public are actually listening to, Ed Sheeran is one of the biggest popstars on the planet atm and this domination on streaming is accurately showing that, in the 1960's the singles chart and album chart would have the Beatles occupy the entire top 5 but if that was what the public was listening to then so be it.
Also another thing streaming has been great for is ending the constant one week #1's in the singles chart which made the achievement far less credible, now we're seeing songs like "Rockabye" #1 for 9 weeks, "One Dance" for 15 weeks, and "Shape Of You" for 8 weeks so far, I think that's far, far greater to see and makes the #1 a lot less attainable.

Posted by: sammy01 Mar 4 2017, 01:24 PM

I hate when people say stuff like this. The public don't have the time to go through random artists and songs they may or may not like to find something different. They go for what they are exposed to and choose what they deem the best of that, which is evidently Ed.

I could eat more experimental or exotic food but I don't have the time to experiment so stick to what I know and enjoy.

Posted by: 360Jupiter Mar 4 2017, 01:26 PM

You're not the only person, I agree 100%

'Singles' seems like such an old-fashioned metric of what they actually want to follow in today's market.

I wouldn't be against a separate 'singles' chart that just counted singles either.

Radio 1 wants to follow what's popular, so it should realise that it's listeners (the majority, that is) don't know or care what a single is and just promote their own 'top songs' chart.

Posted by: Iz~ Mar 4 2017, 01:30 PM

Yeah that's not dismissing the point that doing exactly that, not expanding your horizons, not testing out what you haven't experienced, is boring.

They don't care enough about music to find new music, that's up to them, it's not important to everyone, but from the music fan's point of view, they have a boring music taste.

Posted by: sammy01 Mar 4 2017, 01:36 PM

Boring is such a stupid term and you sound bitter. I cant and don't like opera and if I was someone lazy and trying to be superior I'd call it 'boring' like you but I'm not stuck up.

People like Ed because they identify with his music and lyrics, that is something that is tough to achieve and also comes in many different guises. Jagged Little Pill was an album with lyrics people identified with and was huge.

This 'I have superior music taste so don't like Ed' is beyond sad.

Posted by: Zárate Mar 4 2017, 01:37 PM

It's not the only way, I'm actually against nomination because it's going to be extremely artificial. I'm for a way when a user listens to most of the album, those streams don't count in the singles chart. Most of these 500k+ streams won't count then. But the individual sales and streams will still count.

Posted by: Iz~ Mar 4 2017, 01:46 PM

Good, because I only used the word in its definition of 'not interesting', because you do not have an interesting taste when you only listen to one artist or one subgenre, particularly if it's the most popular artist or subgenre. By definition, currently, people who only listen to Ed are the least interesting music listeners on the planet right now because they form part of the most common minority. (but not so common that they should block out everyone else)

I don't not like Ed, I'm ambivalent towards him but I don't really listen to him because I don't find what he's developed into interesting.

Also, thanks, I do have superior music taste, as do we all in our own minds.

Posted by: Doctor Blind Mar 4 2017, 01:50 PM

Nominating singles won't work because you take control out of the public's hands - say “Galway Girl” becomes a Top 10 and sells very well consistently but Ed/the record company want to promote “Perfect” as the next single you'd have the ludicrous situation of a Top 10 hit being excluded from the chart.

Posted by: Iz~ Mar 4 2017, 01:51 PM

Highest album track becomes eligible as something that's getting retention beyond people just listening to the whole album?

Still a bit arbitrary though, there's no perfect solution.

Posted by: T Boy Mar 4 2017, 01:52 PM

Perhaps people are bitter, but so what? You can't refer to someone as stuck up because they don't like Ed Sheeran, some of the people moaning about this situation do like him anyway. As far as I can see, only Ed fans are particularly happy with this development.

I'm more bitter about the fact that Ed is going to hailed as some sort of God by the media because of this. I have the same issue with Adele. Neither of them is producing groundbreaking music but they're held up as superior to any artist in history because, Ed in particular, they're breaking records that just weren't possible to set for 55 of the last 60 years. I don't feel that they're success is a true reflection of their quality as artists but that is how the media portray it and the media is what all these people mindlessly streaming Ed's album listen to.

So yeah maybe I'm bitter, maybe Iz and several others are too but we do have the right to express ourselves on the matter as people who have been into music and charts for 15 to 20 years and have all but tired of them now.

Posted by: Hayzayy Mar 4 2017, 02:02 PM

LOL love how you actually gave him a point by explaining how people are indeed acting like sheep.

And in the age of Internet, the lack of time is such a lazy and stupid excuse, everything is free out there and ready for people to enjoy.

Posted by: sammy01 Mar 4 2017, 02:03 PM

You just completely dismiss being able to produce music that people identify with though as if it is both not a talent and easy to do. Maybe that does make him and Adele a 'God' because let's be honest thousands of artist try to do the same but don't get anywhere near the success that they have.

Also there are records now that Ed and Adele cant break like they will never have the biggest selling albums ever because people just don't buy albums in the quantity that they did in the past.

Posted by: T Boy Mar 4 2017, 03:56 PM

But that argument is only valid if people actually are identifying with their music. People obviously are but there's definitely an argument for the fact that a large portion of the public are streaming this because of the hype from the media and their general lack of interest in looking for music themselves. And it's also been noted that all of these Ed Sheeran tracks are being hammered on streaming by the small minority that control the charts these days. It's not a reflection of what people are listening to, just of what a certain demographic are listening to.

Posted by: Liаm Mar 4 2017, 04:02 PM

There is a sheep mentality I think, I notice in real life when I play a song ages before it's popular and then it takes off. For example there was Lush Life, everyone was like eh it's ok and then the SECOND it hit the charts and showed up on those spotify playlists (these really don't help tbh, they're kind of deciding what gets pushed in streaming terms) everyone was stanning it. It's like people can't enjoy something unless they have the approval that other people like it which is a bit silly.

That said people wouldn't listen to something they don't like just because other people do, I think it just gives the same few artists an advantage in being popular because everyone listens to them. It's worse with spotify I think partially because of the playlists thing as I said, people just follow those and labels can pay to have good slots on them, that or the same few popular artists can drop a song and smash the Spotify charts.

Posted by: sammy01 Mar 4 2017, 04:04 PM

Isn't the streaming age the opposite, more people listen to music now and contribute towards the charts than ever before? Back in the day Westlife, Girls Aloud etc could get top 10 after top 10 singles because they had a dedicated fanbase who purchased every single they released. It wasn't what the general wider public were listening too and some of the chart runs were small, but the charts were made for fanbase acts to succeed.

People are only listening to his album because they are genuinely interested and connect with him in some way. My mum wont listen to it because she isn't one of those.

You cant say a large portion of the general public are listening out of hype, then say streaming is not a reflection of what people are listening to.

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa Mar 4 2017, 04:07 PM

Agreed

My best music discovery of the year has been Dani Tome from bjsc!!

It seems as the moment any time an act gets popular people become like sheep and buy into it. This happened with the Spice Girls too in the past and Westlife.

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa Mar 4 2017, 04:09 PM

That is a good point tbh.

Posted by: T Boy Mar 4 2017, 04:16 PM

The difference is that the charts are now almost fully controlled by teenagers. Yes, teenagers have always been the biggest contributors and yes, when I was younger the chart was more based around the tastes of me and my mates. But back then, artists with older or more alternative fanbases could still see their favourite songs enter the top 40, even if they never went on to become massive hits. Nowadays it's almost an entire reflection of what teenagers are listening to. They have more time on their hands to stream and music is more accessible at any given moment than it's ever been. But listening habits have changed too. People often put a playlist on to have background music rather than because they actually want to listen to that album.

And I can say that streaming isn't a reflection of what people are listening to. Not everyone streams. I have been listening to Rag 'n' Bone man's album all week but I bought it physically and listen on the iPod. I don't stream. Most people my age and older don't stream. We are still listening to music but our listens don't contribute to the chart. The chart could look very different if every single person streamed all the music they listened too. Ed Sheeran would probably still have the most songs in the chart followed by Stormzy because that is what the teens are listening to and the chart has always skewed in their favour. But say, Lana Del Rey, would still get a top 40 hit.

So you can't say that streaming is an accurate representation of what people are listening to until every single person in every single demographic streams absolutely everything they listen to.

Posted by: sammy01 Mar 4 2017, 04:17 PM

Don't we all do that though? We give our fave artists a good few listens when they release a new song and quicken the 'song has grown on me' thing. Where as a song from an artist we don't know has to work more to win us over. Lush Life probably the more your friends heard it the more it grew on them.

The more often you deliver the more people check for your new songs and give them a chance as the artist has proven themselves in the past. It is only why Ed is so big, if he had released 2 shit albums and a bunch of singles people didn't connect with they wouldn't be there for him and wanting to stream his next release.

Posted by: Iz~ Mar 4 2017, 04:22 PM

And as much as I loathe Westlife and their gamey release week practices, how I wish it was back to something like that, because at least the fanbase acts mattered to a different portion of people each week. You might have Westlife challenging for the top one week but that'd be alongside Eminem, Sugababes, Arctic Monkeys, Usher, Evanescence, the latest DJ party hit from Europe, all appealing to vastly different audiences and the variety makes it more like a battle, makes it matter more who wins out. Now it's an exercise in which bland radio-filler will be top against a sea of other bland radio fillers and there simply is no reason for people to care. Though I'll say, to his credit, Stormzy of all people is moving things in the right direction again. And that's, like T Boy said, the charts are now so controlled by one demographic who probably are putting the 'coolest' (read: inoffensive so no one goes 'what is this shit? your music taste sucks', I should start doing that for inoffensive songs) songs on as background noise and that's all counting.

The amalgamation of the charts into people's listening habits, this demographic who skews towards streaming, completely removes this sort of interesting genre battle where you'll probably love one song in the race to the top of the charts but hate the other and the loss of that loses a lot of entertainment value from the charts as an entity.

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa Mar 4 2017, 04:25 PM

We both loathe Westlife Iz!!!

Posted by: Math ☂ Mar 4 2017, 04:26 PM

I don't think this will ever happen on such a large scale again. If a lot of people listen to a song, regardless of the situation, it should be counted. The streaming representation in the album chart is already very low compared to other countries so I don't think there will be too much interference with the album chart~

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa Mar 4 2017, 04:30 PM

That's what people were saying about 25 ... :/

Posted by: danG Mar 4 2017, 04:32 PM

What about when Justin Bieber releases a new album? Or Ed's fourth album? There will be more times when entire albums make the chart, perhaps not on the massive scale that the current Ed album is (and he's at his career peak now, I can't see his next album outdoing this) but still something worth debating.

Posted by: sammy01 Mar 4 2017, 04:39 PM

We can all judge things with rose tinted glasses. Little Mix are not the same demogrpahic as Stormzy and Rag'n'Bone man, Sia, Drake, Ed, Adele, Rihanna, I wouldn't even know what genre to put Clean Bandit in.

The only thing streaming has done is slow down the chart, which I think is easily solved by just putting a cap on streams from each person that can count towards the chart. Once a person has streamed a song so many times their streams stop counting towards the chart. It would keep things moving more.

I'm 28 my bf is 37 we both stream most of our music (wish I was a teenager).

Posted by: T Boy Mar 4 2017, 04:52 PM

I love Arctic Monkeys but if their debut album filled the charts back in early 2006 because everyone was listening to it, I'd have been annoyed. In fact, I remember their follow up being one of the first times that multiple album tracks charted within the top 100. If they'd clogged up the top 40, again I'd have been annoyed.

Posted by: The Wise Sultan Mar 4 2017, 04:56 PM

Well speaking from a dance perspective, Love On Me by Galantis wasn't that 'cool' or bland sounding it was more lively a dance track than most. Same with Stormzy's 'Cold'. Dance tracks like that are a minority in dance in the charts now though, even on the iTunes chart. I think it's Radio 1's fault too for putting so many beige future bass and tropical house songs on in the daytime while leaving the more interesting dance to night time shows like Dance Anthems.

Posted by: popchartfreak Mar 4 2017, 06:04 PM

're not having time: one makes time if one is passionate about music. So yes that's a poor excuse. I basically do 2 jobs for the price of 1, and care for 2 elderly ailing parents AND keep in touch with friends and go to the cinema. Still find time to check out New music though....

Ed Sheehan is the thinking teenage girls one direction. A bit more folksy substance but a bit bland and soppy with occasional good pop songs. Adele appeals to all ages in a traditional quality Mor fashion.

Posted by: Chez Wombat Mar 4 2017, 06:25 PM

Ed Sheeran is no different to Adele, Dido, James Blunt, Norah Jones, Coldplay, Keane etc. and all the huge album sellers of the 21st Century - it's not vintage classics the odd standout aside, they make accessible music appealing to all age ranges that very few would utterly object to hearing in the background that can easily be played on the radio and found online, this has ALWAYS been what is needed to make it big and it's not really snobbish to say his music appeals to people that don't like music (and/or don't have the time to look for new music) - if anything, it's a strength! The big hits in the Spotify era have been the same honestly, all the songs on the main Spotify playlists seem to be designed for playing in the background, party soundtracks etc., I get their appeal and why people like them, but for me, it's just unexciting music and it's why I stopped listening to the charts and looked for new music elsewhere. I still check every so often but even then, I tend to forget it's even on.

Re: the chart's current status, I can't see what they could do to prevent things like this without making it look unrepresentative of the public's buying/listening habits but I agree it's not healthy for the industry if no new artists are breaking in, I DO feel like more of an effort should be made by the OCC and the broadcasters of the chart to promote newer music outside of the top 40, the bubbling under chart the OCC do should definitely be given airtime, yes go through the chart as always, but wouldn't it make more sense to have more time given to new up and coming music that could go on to connect with the public than playing an all Ed Sheeran top 5 in full for the tenth week in a row?

Posted by: Jonjo Mar 4 2017, 06:32 PM

Not when you can listen on Spotify for FREE...

I don't mind them being in THIS chart individually, I just think they should tweak the rules for the official charts. I like the "if a certain percentage of the album is listened to, it should count to the albums chart" rule.

Posted by: common sense Mar 4 2017, 06:33 PM

Yes that sounds fair to me.

Posted by: SKOB Mar 4 2017, 07:16 PM

The singles + Eraser are by far the strongest songs on Sheeran's album. I don't think it'll occupy the whole top ten on Friday

Posted by: ___∆___ Mar 4 2017, 07:46 PM

What a hot mess the UK singles chart has become so rapidly - I hope he does get the Top 16 as it will force the OCC to do something, can you imagine if he had released a 32 track album or something?!

Posted by: The Wise Sultan Mar 4 2017, 08:34 PM

Aren't party soundtracks usually supposed to be more lively dance songs though, rather than the more chilled tropical house or future bass which is more for background listening?

Posted by: Iz~ Mar 4 2017, 08:43 PM

Listing off a bunch of 00s acts and waxing about 00s nostalgia wasn't the point of my post. Well, it was a little of a point of my post but... look at the difference between my list and your list. My list is a quick reeling off of some of the 00s superstars. Maybe 20% of the list of acts who could reasonably be expected to get a big hit in the charts back then - and as basically any new act could get a chance with a week's push behind it, even less of the total. They're all incredibly diverse, their songs don't sound the same. Your list, by contrast, contains probably a majority of the list of acts who could get a big hit in the charts today. It's much harder for a new act to push through and only if they sound like one of those people will they get a chance. They're also a lot less diverse, there's no rock, there's barely any 'pure pop', fringes of genres have no chance to even score a rare crossover track anymore. Some outliers aside it's a mush of RnB-tinged-house-adult-contemporary, and they all influence each other to the point where there is a lot of overlap and there's going to be few people who love one and hate the other.

And this paints me as even more elitist but I've come this far, they just aren't as innovative. Clean Bandit (and now Stormzy, I keep forgetting how much of a moment Big For Your Boots has been as a landmark song for grime, even now I'd say that's a future classic) are the only ones who I'd say are genuinely innovative and even they are suffering as the focus on them as one of the few chart acts who can get a hit forces them to make more chart-friendly accessible music. Most of what I listed, some were the 00s counterparts, true, but others, Eminem, Arctic Monkeys, had songs with talking points, songs that made people care, songs that inspired news articles about their content, about their controversy. The only news articles today's chart hits are inspiring is when they just won't go away. Streaming has moved Chez' list of the adult contemporary radio fillers (about half of your list) into the mainstream of the charts completely blocking out anything else instead of just taking up some spaces like they used to do. And it's relegating interesting music that once would have gained some recognition through a week of hype and sales to just talk and hearsay and that's not healthy for music remaining interesting if these are the superstars of today.

Posted by: Chez Wombat Mar 4 2017, 09:10 PM

Well from my (limited) experience of house parties, background music usually suffices, not like anyone hears it anyway over the noise anyway it's the sort of dance that even if it is lively is just dull tropical house fusions, or The Chainsmokers, most of their songs pretty much define 'dull background party music' that Spotify playlists lap up so it's no surprise that they are the forefront of dance atm.

Posted by: The Hit Parade Mar 4 2017, 11:12 PM

But that's the point - lots of people, probably most people, aren't particularly interested in music. It's not compulsory.

Posted by: The Wise Sultan Mar 4 2017, 11:31 PM

Thats sad the music at house parties isn't very ravey any more!

The problem is that Radio 1 doesn't daytime playlist many lively dance tracks. I wish Radio 1 daytime playlisted more of the Friday and Saturday night dance anthems stuff, it is a lot more lively and interesting than stuff like Scared To Be Lonely.

Posted by: Mateja Mar 4 2017, 11:49 PM

I've just listened to Ed's new album. I don't get the hate. Yes, it's very poppy and made to appeal to the mainstream audience. But at the same time, it's very listenable. I plan to listen more in the coming days.

I understand that many chart watchers don't want album tracks to chart on the singles chart, but at this point, every song on the album can be considered a single. And the biggest artists will continue putting their album tracks on the chart.

Posted by: Liаm Mar 5 2017, 12:02 AM

House parties is literally just chart music really Except our house parties or pres which end up with my playlists full of a mixture of chart stuff, K-Pop, BJSC, Eurovision, and whatever else, but I try to avoid the Spotify top few that we'll hear out anyway

Posted by: T Boy Mar 5 2017, 12:06 AM

I don't think anyone is disputing the quality of the album, just how mundane the charts have become.

Posted by: sammy01 Mar 5 2017, 12:11 AM

Have you read this thread? Half the posters are saying it is boring and people are sheep for listening to it.

Posted by: The Wise Sultan Mar 5 2017, 12:24 AM

K-pop is much more lively, even if judging by the various BJSC K-pop songs and BTS's songs that were in the itunes chart recently, the production often seems to be stuck in the 2010-2012 style EDM pop phase (which is certainly better than tropical house or future bass imo).

I haven't been to a house party in a long time but I thought it would be more the sort of stuff played on Radio 1s Dance Anthems show.

Posted by: 777666jason Mar 5 2017, 12:30 AM

Ed might dilute the charts but if he's popular he's popular it's how the chart have always been calculated with or without streaming there is the very real prospect of him having at least half his album

Posted by: Laura130262 Mar 5 2017, 01:14 AM

I'm 55 - I wouldn't know how to stream. although at last now I have grasped how it works. I was broughtup in the vinyl/cassette age and learnt about downloading. Now it's changed again.

The only way I hear "chart" music is via Heart London which I listen to everyday. They do play artists that are high in the charts but normally only after the song has been out for a few weeks. For example they've just started playing Rag 'n' Bone Man Human so that's how I get to hear it. Then I decide if I want to buy it from ITunes.

So it means people like me are hearing and enjoying and maybe buying new music weeks after youngsters have been streaming it.

Posted by: BillyH Mar 5 2017, 01:44 AM

Think about how brilliant this is for music managers and promoters though - Justin Bieber gets the top 3 singles in a week, Drake's number 1 for fifteen weeks, Clean Bandit Christmas #1, Ed Sheeran ruling half the chart etc - it makes this 'era' of popular music not just feel special, but the biggest ever era in musical history. Adele, Sheeran, Bieber etc are getting headline after headline for breaking chart records that have stood for decades, and people read them thinking they must be genuinely truly massive in a way that every singer or group before them never quite managed. When of course, they're not - they're certainly big stars and up there with pop's current A-list, but they've just been lucky to be around at a time when music consumption's shifting completely from sales to streams. You can't compare Ed Sheeran to The Beatles, Justin Bieber to Elvis or Little Mix to the Spice Girls, even if their chart history and associated hype makes them look closer in equivalent star power than they are.

Pick any year you like, and a couple of A-list pop acts fronm the time, and you can guarantee they'd have done exactly the same had streaming been around in their era. A Beatle-filled top 40 in 1964? A Slade top 3 in 1973? Fifteen weeks at #1 for Frankie Goes To Hollywood (twice!) in 1984? 'Barbie Girl' the shock Christmas #1 of 1997? Could all have happened under a different music climate.

Posted by: iHype. Mar 5 2017, 06:50 AM

DAY 2.

Posted by: T Boy Mar 5 2017, 09:41 AM

Actually you're wrong there. Those claiming Ed is boring haven't listened to the album because they personally find him and his music in general boring so they're not interested in the album. That doesn't mean it's a bad album, just that it's not for them. And people have mentioned a sheep mentality but that doesn't mean that a lot of people don't genuinely like the album.

And as for this looking like 'the greats era in music ever'-that's my issue. Ed, Adele, Bieber-they're all producing music that I personally find uninteresting and pretty bland. And yet the perception is that we've never had it so good. I disagree with that and so I don't like the constant headlines of how groundbreaking all these people are because the casual streamer doesn't really care what they're listening to.

Posted by: sammy01 Mar 5 2017, 10:25 AM

I don't think you can include Adele in this, she genuinely is one of the top 4 or 5 artists ever in terms of impact, sales, recognition and everything. When you are shifting 20m albums when even the best of the rest are struggling to hit 3m you are worthy of every accolade. 2 consecutive diamond albums in the US, 21 looking likely to become the biggest selling studio album ever in the UK. These are not 'most streamed song' or 'most downloaded artist' these are achievements that would have put her at the absolute top of any generation.

Posted by: popchartfreak Mar 5 2017, 10:27 AM

It should be!

re: other comments: 10 million people listen to Radio 2 and passively listen to the music on there. That's no different to people passively listening to Spotify playlists for FREE. At least Radio 2 listeners pay through the TV licence....

Neither should qualify towards the chart. If you aren't passionate enough to choose to play a particular track and pay towards it then why should that count towards an ever-blander, never-changing chart of superstars and tropical house midtempo inoffensive dance? When I say the Beatles would have dominated the singles chart absolutely in a streaming-60's world, they would have. That doesn't mean it would have been a good thing. The charts of the time were chock full of loads of other brilliant artists having to accept lower chart positions and they would have been squeezed out and not obtained slots on Radio or Top Of The Pops. The music scene was fast-moving and busy.

Just because previous generations of superstars would have been in the same position doesn't mean it would have been desirable in any way. The music scene would have been much poorer for it.

Posted by: ___∆___ Mar 5 2017, 05:59 PM

Over 68 million Spotify plays in 1 day

http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/ed-sheeran-obliterates-spotify-record-with-68-7m-streams-in-a-day/

Posted by: Red. Mar 5 2017, 11:39 PM

Listening to the album for the first time today on Spotify. Very good. So many good songs on it easy to see why it's so popular.

Posted by: The Wise Sultan Mar 6 2017, 12:10 PM

I don't know much about Spotify playlists so I have a question...who creates the big Spotify playlists and decides whether a new song (particularly one from an act that hasn't had a hit before like Martin Jensen with Solo Dance) makes it?

Posted by: ___∆___ Mar 6 2017, 12:30 PM

It will be an internal Spotify decision much like radio station playlists - I'm sure record companies offer incentives to be added to playlists or to feature higher up. So many singles have become 'hits' and certified silver despite poor sales because of Spotify playlists.

Posted by: The Wise Sultan Mar 6 2017, 12:47 PM

Well it is good that someone who hasn't had a hit before like Martin Jensen can get a hit, when it is usually those who have had hits before like Martin Garrix, The Chainsmokers or Galantis that have had a hit before (even both Jax Jones and RAYE had features on hits prior to You Don't Know Me). Even if Solo Dance is tropical house and isn't to my taste . I assume the main reason Martin Jensen has a hit is because of being included on the Spotify playlists though, rather than popularity through YouTube encouraging people to stream it?

Posted by: danG Mar 6 2017, 01:11 PM

Martin Jensen is one big example of record companies pushing for certain songs to be included on big playlists, one would presume payola is occurring behind the scenes...

Posted by: howiet1971 Mar 6 2017, 02:14 PM

HALLELUJAH!!!! Very well put!!!!

Posted by: The Wise Sultan Mar 6 2017, 02:23 PM

I would like to see that happen with Marshmello , Ookay and Noah Cyrus - Chasing Colors as that is a relevant genre (future bass) but is much more dancey and less poppy and it would be good to see that do well.

I suppose the record companies pushing for songs to be on Spotify is like what was discussed on the early 00s chart hits thread, where some record companies reportedly spam phoned up The Box and other request music channels (which were big chart influencers back then) to get their songs on it!

Posted by: SKOB Mar 6 2017, 02:23 PM

But there is a reason why Adele and Ed are so popular:

People can relate to them

Posted by: Hayzayy Mar 6 2017, 02:39 PM

I guess you mean "relate to their songs" because I don't think many people relate to a global diva with a powerful voice.

One of the reasons why they sell that much is because they tick all the boxes including the most important criteria : appeal to all generations. Adele and Ed can sell albums to kids, teenagers, young men and women and even older people. That's why they so easily sell millions. Our pop favourites could never simply bcause they don't appeal to such a broad audience.

Posted by: sammy01 Mar 6 2017, 02:45 PM

I think a lot of Adele's appeal is people see her as one of them, the girl next door who swears a little too much and lives a simple life.

Posted by: Liаm Mar 6 2017, 02:47 PM

She is a global star but she's also just a normal woman compared to a lot of big stars. I think for her and Ed that does factor into their success! She's not an unattainable diva, she's a normal girl from London who gets starstruck like we do and is a bit loud and excitable She just happens to be a huge star too.