BuzzJack
Entertainment Discussion

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register | Help )

Latest Site News
> -
4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Automatic Reset chart rule change?, +50% change reduced to +25%?
Track this topic - Email this topic - Print this topic - Download this topic - Subscribe to this forum
Suedehead2
post Jul 22 2019, 07:23 PM
Post #61
BuzzJack Legend
*******
Group: Admin.
Posts: 27,669
Member No.: 3,272
Joined: 13-April 07
   No Gallery Pics
 


I think those of us who follow the charts closely over-estimate how many people could name the number one song of the day in the past. That said, I suspect the number of people who could do so has been in decline for some time. Perhaps that was best illustrated when One Dance was number one for about 83 years. Previous long-running number ones had entered the public consciousness and become the subject of jokes. Just a few years before, there had been a whole string of jokes about how much rain we had while Umbrella was number one.

The decline in interest in the number one single probably really got underway when one-week number ones (mostly going straight to the top) became the norm. That made it much harder for those with a casual interest to keep up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
danG
post Jul 22 2019, 09:24 PM
Post #62
can you hear me? S.O.S ◢ ◤
********
Group: Chart Mod
Posts: 54,702
Member No.: 11,746
Joined: 30-August 10
   No Gallery Pics
 


I think most people would guess ed sheeran has the number one single in the country if you asked but many wouldn’t be able to name the song.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glenn 69
post Jul 22 2019, 10:25 PM
Post #63
BuzzJack Climber
**
Group: Members
Posts: 146
Member No.: 29,123
Joined: 10-April 17
   No Gallery Pics
 


He is everywhere. Even on bottles of Heinz ketchup (Tomato Edchup anybody?)

But I agree Joe Public probably couldn't name many of his songs
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JosephAvery
post Jul 22 2019, 10:39 PM
Post #64
the doctor says i'm diagnosed with shit days and mistakes
********
Group: Chief Cow
Posts: 66,244
Member No.: 13,530
Joined: 19-April 11
 


Have you seen Ed's album sales? I guarantee you Joe Public would be able to name several Ed songs. They might just not know which one is at #1.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dircadirca
post Jul 23 2019, 04:15 AM
Post #65
BuzzJack Gold Member
*****
Group: Members
Posts: 3,435
Member No.: 19,614
Joined: 28-July 13
   No Gallery Pics
 


Is it really Ed Sheeran or Shawn Mendes or whoever's fault if the general public are less likely to be aware that they were #1 than their equivalents of 30 years ago? It strikes me as a systematic situation of the culture around the world (and not just music), and even then I'm not even sure if it's true. I've been listening to and hearing music all my life but I *never* knew what was #1 in the charts. In our music class we had to sing Daphne & Celeste's "U.G.L.Y." which in addition to that was on our local "NOW!" equivalent which made me think it was one of the biggest songs of the year...it peaked at #40. I never found out where I could read the official charts until I stumbled on an archive in 2008 that I still use to this day. No matter how passionate I was about music, I would never have as much encyclopedic knowledge of the pantomime of the music charts if not for the internet, but at the same time, the internet is also responsible for making music perhaps seem like less of a big deal, simply because it fosters so many community interests. Something I think that goes overlooked as well is the fact that it's so much easier to discover music that's not in the charts/on the radio, and in turn, it means that the top 40 of now represents a lesser proportion of music consumption than it did before. If I had a hypothetical gothic metal phase as a teenager I couldn't do act on it at all because there was nowhere to hear it. If there were CDs available in stores I'd have to buy them blindly...except I couldn't do that because I had no money to spend frivolously like that. The best thing about the charts now is that it's no longer ruled by the bourgeois with way too much money to spend. We see songs get certified by the BPI all the time that have never even touched the charts, and it's not because the charts are broken, it just follows a less sharp focus. If #1 on the charts now is less significant than it was 20 years ago when 200,000 people were buying a particular single in a week (although I still think 4,000,000+ streams is extremely notable and not to be dismissed), #500 on the charts now is worth a heck of a lot more than the pittance it would take to get to that hypothetical chart position in 1999, because for so many of us, the 50-100 songs in current rotation around our lives are completely different as opposed to being all the same.

Much like the OCC needs to stop making up new rules to attempt to wrangle the charts back to how they were, it's important to perceive this entropy (or lack there-of in some cases) as a sign of the times, not something that needs to be fixed. The whole point of the charts is to highlight what's popular now after all.


This post has been edited by Dircadirca: Jul 23 2019, 04:20 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bifket
post Jul 25 2019, 04:05 PM
Post #66
New Entry
*
Group: Members
Posts: 8
Member No.: 79,673
Joined: 28-November 18
   No Gallery Pics
 


just call it points instead of sales like how we do in the US. it's so obvious
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JosephAvery
post Jul 25 2019, 04:41 PM
Post #67
the doctor says i'm diagnosed with shit days and mistakes
********
Group: Chief Cow
Posts: 66,244
Member No.: 13,530
Joined: 19-April 11
 


QUOTE(bifket @ Jul 25 2019, 05:05 PM) *
just call it points instead of sales like how we do in the US. it's so obvious

But does it matter that much to rename it? Of course we know that "sale" has become blurred but renaming it to points achieves absolutely nothing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
___∆___
post Jul 25 2019, 04:44 PM
Post #68
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Members
Posts: 9,751
Member No.: 3,155
Joined: 25-March 07
 


QUOTE(bifket @ Jul 25 2019, 05:05 PM) *
just call it points instead of sales like how we do in the US. it's so obvious


Sale, point, unit, make believe figure? It doesn’t really matter tbh.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bifket
post Jul 25 2019, 05:29 PM
Post #69
New Entry
*
Group: Members
Posts: 8
Member No.: 79,673
Joined: 28-November 18
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(___∆___ @ Jul 25 2019, 12:44 PM) *
Sale, point, unit, make believe figure? It doesn’t really matter tbh.

QUOTE(JosephAvery @ Jul 25 2019, 12:41 PM) *
But does it matter that much to rename it? Of course we know that "sale" has become blurred but renaming it to points achieves absolutely nothing.


It at least will prevent another outrage like in this thread where people are freaking out about what a "sale" means anymore to the OCC lol. That's what i was responding to. Billboard has never ever called their chart points "sales" for a reason. Because of this stuff. Bjork gets it.


This post has been edited by bifket: Jul 25 2019, 05:31 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bifket
post Jul 25 2019, 05:54 PM
Post #70
New Entry
*
Group: Members
Posts: 8
Member No.: 79,673
Joined: 28-November 18
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(aidan755 @ Jul 22 2019, 06:29 AM) *
How can anyone think that streams should be removed from the chart? Streaming is easily the best thing to happen to the industry. It's never been easier to discover new music legally. I have over 5,000 songs in my music library and there's no way I could afford to buy every single one of them - the only other option would've been illegal downloading. I still buy my absolute favourite music but that's just a personal preference, I doubt the majority of people do this.

It also tracks the actual popularity of a song over time - with a digital download the person could listen to it once but streaming reflects how popular #1 and Top 10 hits stay over time and goes beyond the chart peak (i.e. songs peaking in the 20s that eventually go platinum vs top 10s which barely scrape silver or gold).

Barely anyone buys music anymore, it hardly reflects the popularity of a song. If the new Kylie song is #1 on iTunes and gets a couple of thousand sales but can't even chart in the Spotify Top 200 (and audio streaming accounts for 2/3 of UK music market alone, with downloads ever decreasing) then clearly that song shouldn't be high in the singles chart. Streaming is the future and desperately clinging onto digital downloads won't make the rest of the U.K. market go back to them.

The only thing the OCC have messed up is ACR. It's a ridiculous rule to implement after only 10 weeks. That's not long enough to start pushing a song out and it skews the popularity of the singles chart. So what if a song is still Top 10 on the chart after 20 weeks? That just displays how much of a mega hit it is. If they have to implement it at all, they should extend it to 20 weeks at the minimum. ACR is the only thing ruining the Singles Chart, not streams themselves. And it's such a shame because I believe the OCC have got streams perfectly in the albums chart.

Yuuup. Streaming didn't ruin the chart. It's the OCC's bogging-down of the chart with rules like ACR that has resulted in weird situations like I Don't Care vanishing off of the chart because of the 3 song/artist rule and ACR. I understand that nobody wants a stagnant chart or songs lingering around for months, but if a song is top 10 for months because millions of people have decided to stream it for months, then so be it. It's time the OCC stop pretending that songs aren't popular just because they think they're "on their way out" or because they're "old" lol


this reminds me… does anybody know if they still have that 10 plays per person per day limit?


This post has been edited by bifket: Jul 25 2019, 09:29 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dircadirca
post Jul 25 2019, 11:01 PM
Post #71
BuzzJack Gold Member
*****
Group: Members
Posts: 3,435
Member No.: 19,614
Joined: 28-July 13
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(bifket @ Jul 26 2019, 01:54 AM) *
this reminds me… does anybody know if they still have that 10 plays per person per day limit?

I believe so yes. It's something Spotify does internally when they publish the data themselves before the OCC receives it. Not sure about other platforms but it's probably the same.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AcerBen
post Jul 26 2019, 11:33 AM
Post #72
BuzzJack Gold Member
*****
Group: Members
Posts: 2,818
Member No.: 3,429
Joined: 18-May 07
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(aidan755 @ Jul 22 2019, 10:29 AM) *
How can anyone think that streams should be removed from the chart? Streaming is easily the best thing to happen to the industry. It's never been easier to discover new music legally. I have over 5,000 songs in my music library and there's no way I could afford to buy every single one of them - the only other option would've been illegal downloading. I still buy my absolute favourite music but that's just a personal preference, I doubt the majority of people do this.

It also tracks the actual popularity of a song over time - with a digital download the person could listen to it once but streaming reflects how popular #1 and Top 10 hits stay over time and goes beyond the chart peak (i.e. songs peaking in the 20s that eventually go platinum vs top 10s which barely scrape silver or gold).

Barely anyone buys music anymore, it hardly reflects the popularity of a song. If the new Kylie song is #1 on iTunes and gets a couple of thousand sales but can't even chart in the Spotify Top 200 (and audio streaming accounts for 2/3 of UK music market alone, with downloads ever decreasing) then clearly that song shouldn't be high in the singles chart. Streaming is the future and desperately clinging onto digital downloads won't make the rest of the U.K. market go back to them.

The only thing the OCC have messed up is ACR. It's a ridiculous rule to implement after only 10 weeks. That's not long enough to start pushing a song out and it skews the popularity of the singles chart. So what if a song is still Top 10 on the chart after 20 weeks? That just displays how much of a mega hit it is. If they have to implement it at all, they should extend it to 20 weeks at the minimum. ACR is the only thing ruining the Singles Chart, not streams themselves. And it's such a shame because I believe the OCC have got streams perfectly in the albums chart.


I agree that removing streams from the chart is a ridiculous idea and sales are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

I get your point about how streams just show the popularity of a song and so what if songs stay in the charts for months on end - that would be fine if the chart was there purely to reflect consumption. But it isn't, and never has been. It is a promotional tool for the industry, so the struggle for certain artists to get on the chart makes it harder for them to break through. It also has a direct impact on media decisions on playlisting, who to book for TV shows etc. And the chart one way or another has an effect on what people listen to, so it becomes a vicious circle. The public need to be persuaded to listen to more new music. If the chart is slow and clogged up with the same old songs, it's bad for the industry.

In the sales era, the chart reflected momentum and shifts in popularity. And once they'd peaked in popularity, they'd move out of the way for new songs. In my view, that's what the official chart should still do. ACR is one way of doing that, though I don't think they've got it right yet. They should come up with a more complex formula to make the chart behave a little more like it used to, so more songs can make the top 40. You can still have a streaming chart that just reflects total streams, but the official chart should be about what's fresh and gaining in popularity.

With downloads continuing to fall, of course giving them more prominence in the chart formula is not the answer, but it is frustrating that legacy artists or new artists struggling to build a fanbase who'd in the old days would've sold 10,000 copies in a week and made the top 20, now can't get anywhere near the top 100. And whilst in a way streaming does reflect popularity better than sales, I don't like how being on curated playlists or not has such a big effect on the numbers, and that it seems like the streaming chart mainly reflects the popularity of songs with a certain demographic, rather than the country as a whole. I don't know what the solution to that is. We probably just have to live with it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
danG
post Jul 26 2019, 11:44 AM
Post #73
can you hear me? S.O.S ◢ ◤
********
Group: Chart Mod
Posts: 54,702
Member No.: 11,746
Joined: 30-August 10
   No Gallery Pics
 


well firstly the occ should have adapted the billboard style 20 week rule so at least more songs crack the top 100 and earn their place in history as minor chart hits.

a cap of ten streams per song per user in total may also be an idea, then we don’t have old songs lingering in the top 40 because people won’t stop banging then after fifty listens.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gambo
post Jul 26 2019, 12:39 PM
Post #74
BuzzJack Climber
**
Group: Members
Posts: 121
Member No.: 21,106
Joined: 29-July 14
   No Gallery Pics
 


I couldn't agree more with those who have commented that the charts are there to reflect what is going on in real markets - or at least should be. In which case, they should not be restricted to accommodate or iron-out perceived inconveniences or inconsistencies that the current sales or streaming sectors inherently entail, due to behaviour of consumers that is either organic or massaged by the record industry.

The OCC - or its predecessor CIN - did not seek to somehow amend the singles chart formula during the 1990s just because of the increased usage of 'front-loading' marketing norms that led to songs entering at their peak only to fall back thereafter, virtually eliminating sustained upward movement from the countdown and shortening the lifespan of many singles for ten years 1995 to 2005. Many commentators, both consumers and industry figures, disliked this as it was a seemingly skewed and unconventional behaviour for singles after three decades of consistent entry-climb-peak-decline, across 10-20 weeks for a bigger hit, and felt wrong. Indeed there was much talk in the early '90s, even before the entry-at-peak trend really became fully-embedded but during a period of declining sales, of altering the formula to align more with Billboard's, i.e. add an airplay factor to create what would have been a false impression of tracks building for longer towards a peak which would only be triggered once actually made available to buy. Happily, the idea was never fleshed-out or inaugurated. So the chart did become predictable in that everyone following music knew what would likely be the big new entries each week, with no real excitement beyond the debut week's position of a song due to the sheer turnover of around half the Top 40 every 7 days. Yes, I think that did do a lot of damage to the reputation and perceived relevance of the chart, with many older fans drifting away from it, even if they retained an ongoing interest in consuming current releases. Yet would that have been reason-enough to have justified CIN fiddling with the formula to complicate and arguably artificialise the rankings? I would say not, though others may disagree. For all its faults, the chart represented what the industry - and eventually the buying public - wanted of the pattern that singles were promoted, released and bought, which eventually gave way gradually from the mid-'00s as digital downloads shook-up the way we consumed tracks in general, and later the move from purchasing to renting music via online streaming sites. Chart behaviour moved along with those developments, with the reinstatement of more sustained ascendance and slower descendance to and from peaks, and a much lower turnover than anyone could've foreseen only a decade before.

So should the OCC, after awkwardly combining streams with sales in both singles and albums charts despite the inherent differences in the type of consumption, have subsequently started introducing restrictions in response to the some-say inevitable occasional mass-dominance of one very popular artist in one or two week's charts caused by en-masse immediate streaming? Or just let the chart reflect the new realities, however skewed they seem to some, and whatever the risk of some thinking that reality somehow reduces the relevance or worth of the tabulation as a whole? I have to say the latter, as despite some people finding it ridiculous that all of an Ed Sheeran's album tracks can block-out 20 out of 25 positions in the full Top 200 tracks listing, that is how the streaming sector operates, and surely it discredits and devalues the notion of having an official chart far-more to airbrush oddities out and artificially-manipulate published positions on it than to just let it evolve and reflect what is actually happening? If we look back at the 1990s/2000s era when many chart followers are thought to have deserted the concept often owing to the pace of turnover, it has become clear in the years since that there remains much nostalgia for the charts of those years among those who were young and caught-up in the culture of that period, and that they miss that frantic turnover and race for a different song to be at No 1 every week. And lest we forget, the late '90s in particular saw very strong physical sales, which showed that the interest in the format per se had not all-but-evaporated as many doomsayers predicted earlier in the decade. When it did die, for another decade, downloads filled the gap and again, with a little stuttering along the way, the chart was only adjusted so that it could properly-include that format alongside its physical counterparts. Very few restrictions were applied from January 2007 onwards.

As with all other prior trends, we've seen them all develop and eventually lose currency through time, however set and unassailable they appeared - from front-loaded CD singles, to all tracks being available immediately for download, via on-air/on-sale, through to playlisting and streaming replacing purchasing as the chief means of consumption in a matter of five years. It's fairly certain then that whatever happens in music in the coming years, the fearsome pace of technological change and willingness of consumers to move with that lead will ensure that the extremities of the present chart will likely not exist in another five or ten years' time. So its shape and behaviour may well settle into a different - or previously-familiar - pattern yet again. The chart administrators simply need to let that happen naturally and not interfere unduly with it in the neurotic way the OCC have been since 2015.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hadji
post Jul 26 2019, 04:33 PM
Post #75
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Members
Posts: 6,922
Member No.: 21,386
Joined: 20-November 14
   No Gallery Pics
 


This chart rule change is gonna make the chart more stale. Billie and Ed have both gone back to SCR because of this. And also, Shotgun can now easily go back to SCR and plague the top 40 even longer

This post has been edited by Hadji: Jul 29 2019, 08:46 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post


4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd August 2019 - 06:07 PM