Printable version of thread

Posted by: Ne Plus Ultra 12th July 2016, 04:37 PM

http://hitsdailydouble.com/news&id=301895

Why the hell would he want radio airplay in the charts (obviously since he's the head of a radio station, it'd make sense to him) since that would make the charts even SLOWER like in the US and Canada?

Posted by: JosephStyles 12th July 2016, 04:38 PM

Radio airplay in the chart would be ridiculous as it is NOT an indicator of popularity at all lol. The solution to speed the chart up is to reduce the ratio to 200:1 or something I think.

Posted by: liamk97 12th July 2016, 04:41 PM

I don't understand how anyone, but particularly someone of his position, would associate livening up the chart with adding radio airplay? He even mentions the US chart which is far more stagnant than the UK one. Plus, as Joseph said, radio airplay is not an indicator of what the public are choosing to invest in.

Posted by: mr_pmt 12th July 2016, 04:48 PM

NO.

Posted by: danG 12th July 2016, 04:49 PM

OMG

AirPlay would make the chart far more stagnant. I thought that would be really obvious especially to a radio boss

Posted by: Ðøßßø 12th July 2016, 04:50 PM

If Airplay is factored in then that really would be R.I.P.

Posted by: danG 12th July 2016, 04:51 PM

The OCC did say that they'd never include AirPlay in the chart so I don't think this is something we should be worried about

Posted by: khali25 12th July 2016, 05:16 PM

WTF. So radio stations can help manipulate chart positions? Radio stations that are more or less controlled/influenced by the big major labels. This dude must have been smoking some prime A weed when he made that statement

Posted by: Mart!n 12th July 2016, 05:23 PM

I was dreaded the day they start including airplay, bad decision in my opinion, it should reflect on the buying public.

Posted by: Hazza Chapman 12th July 2016, 05:31 PM

Solution: get rid of streaming from the chart

Another solution: block Drake's weekly standing orders to the Official Charts Company

Posted by: JosephStyles 12th July 2016, 05:34 PM

I wonder what's higher: Drake's streams total or the amount of times you've made this joke :')

Posted by: Hazza Chapman 12th July 2016, 05:37 PM

Neither.

Posted by: TheSnake 12th July 2016, 05:42 PM

It would be great to see Catfish and The Bottlemen, Slaves or Bring Me The Horizon etc. singles in the lower end of the top 40 which might happen as these bands are commonly A listed by Radio 1. It would give rock music more of a chance of reaching the top 40.

Airplay defines the music of a time as much as the charts for example 'High With Emotion' by Thomas Falke I remember hearing a lot in early 2005 and it didn't reach the top 40. Likewise those dubstep tunes in 2011 and 2012 that got a lot of airplay but didn't reach the top 40 (Holdin' On, Bonfire, Wild For the Night etc) and The Strokes' Under Cover of Darkness too, which also defined that time for me.

I think adding airplay is a good thing. The only problem is that it makes the charts less legitimate, but if it gives rock bands that make the A list on radio 1 more of a chance of singles chart success than that is a good thing.

Posted by: Ethan 12th July 2016, 05:44 PM

ludicrous suggestion ~ radio stations need to up their game rather than trying to hijack the official chart to retain some semblance of relevancy in the streaming age~

Posted by: danG 12th July 2016, 05:44 PM

Not that I agree with AirPlay being included (hopefully it never happens, the day it does will be signal the death of the UK singles chart), but he has a point about the major labels heavily influencing the chart at the moment through streaming (i.e. Spotify's promoted curated playlists, which have a big chart impact). It's unlikely anything will be done about that though as the majors have always had a huge impact on the chart, it's just the way popular music works.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 12th July 2016, 05:46 PM

Anyway we may have two new songs in the Top 5 so Chris Price needs to take a look at his own playlist which also badly needs ‘shaking up’.

Posted by: danG 12th July 2016, 05:47 PM

Why would adding AirPlay be a good thing???

If anything it would give rock bands much LESS singles chart success. Yes, some do get lots of Radio 1 airplay but there are many other stations as well that only play hit/chart/MoR music (Capital, Kiss, Heart etc.)

Posted by: SevenSeize 12th July 2016, 05:49 PM

If it were solely Radio 1 then yes, but in reality it would incorporate airplay from the likes Capital and many other commercial stations and well, so including 'airplay' would only serve to benefit the bigger name artists/more radio friendly hits even more

Posted by: liamk97 12th July 2016, 05:50 PM

That's what I was thinking. Any boost that rock bands get from Radio 1 a-listing would be cancelled out by Capital playing the chart hits 50+ times a week.

Posted by: danG 12th July 2016, 05:53 PM

One Dance would probably remain in the top 40 until Christmas* if AirPlay was included too. No-one wants that.

*2017

Posted by: Dircadirca 12th July 2016, 05:54 PM

If people happen to be listening to the same songs for weeks on end, then the charts should reflect that. Accuracy is more important than having a 'fun' chart.

Posted by: Suedehead2 12th July 2016, 05:59 PM

He seems to be working on the assumption that all radio stations have a playlist as varied as Radio 1.

He has a point about streaming playlists though. His comments reflect my remarks in last Friday's commentary. OTOH, I do sometimes look at the playlists in search of something new.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 12th July 2016, 05:59 PM

I could get on board if BBC Radio 6Music airplay was the ONLY airplay included.

Posted by: Suedehead2 12th July 2016, 06:00 PM

Now THAT would be a great chart

Posted by: *Ben* 12th July 2016, 06:11 PM

Neither? Well done, you've equalled Drake's streams total

Posted by: T Boy 12th July 2016, 06:12 PM

So were the first 62 years of the chart inaccurate then?

Posted by: *Ben* 12th July 2016, 06:15 PM

that's not really true. There are thousands of other radio stations then Radio 1 and those rock bands won't get so many plays that they could even chart in the top 75 imo.
If I see for example Capital's playlist, it's much more stale, full of the current chart hits and less new music. It would only make the chart more stagnant.

PS: just saw others have already answered the same as I

Posted by: SevenSeize 12th July 2016, 06:16 PM

"....with new entries this week from...Metronomy and White Denim!" *.*

Posted by: *Ben* 12th July 2016, 06:22 PM

In my opinion one solution would be fine, and that would be: count the revenue and not sold units like how the German charts work.

Add up the revenue of a song/single makes the week, where streaming I would say should count 1p. So to reach the full price (99p), it should be streamed 99 times.
Although the 59p discount wouldn't have such a big effect on a chart but a real big hit (with full price) would have an advantage, also new tracks in full price would have advantage plus physicals would do some difference too

One more thing: in Germany as far as I know only payed streaming subscriptions count to the charts, free subscriptions not.

Posted by: Mart!n 12th July 2016, 06:23 PM

Taking streaming sales out of the chart won't happen anyway, just make matters worse sales wise, increasing the ratio might help.

Posted by: TheSnake 12th July 2016, 06:29 PM

It would be good for dance music though, streaming being introduced stopped as many dance tracks entering the chart after so many entering in early 2015. The likes of 'Piece of Me' and 'Freak Like Me' at the minute would benefit from it.

Posted by: mdna. 12th July 2016, 06:30 PM

I had hope when I saw the first few words of the title, wtf though Not a problem to worry about luckily.

Posted by: TMD_24 12th July 2016, 06:33 PM

I would only support AirPlay if streaming was removed from the charts, if streaming was also removed I would also support TV plays being added as well.

Posted by: TheSnake 12th July 2016, 06:36 PM

There are so few new entries these days compared to the last decade or even 2010-early 2015 when 8 new entries a week was not uncommon.

Somebody should do the stats but there has been fewer new entries in the chart for the first half of this year than I can ever remember, I wonder when the last time there was as few new entries.

Posted by: *Ben* 12th July 2016, 06:37 PM

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think those two tracks had enough plays to make it to the top 40? Don't forget that the tracks above them had also many plays.

Posted by: Dircadirca 12th July 2016, 06:49 PM

Certainly not, though I would be curious to see what it would look like if such monitoring was possible. Especially in those periods around the late '90s/early '00s where even the biggest hits were often gone from the charts in a flash.

Posted by: AcerBen 12th July 2016, 07:07 PM

Isn't he totally contradicting himself? He objects to including streams from curated playlists because it's akin to radio airplay - but wants radio airplay to be included?

Posted by: Bjork 12th July 2016, 08:48 PM

not counting streams from playlists and only counting proper streams could be a solution to make the charts faster...
or count only the first time a song is streamed...
or count only paid subscribers
I personally think any of the 3 above would work to make the charts faster without the need to add airplay

Posted by: Steve201 13th July 2016, 12:46 AM

If one of these indie bands did release a song that got a listed on radio 1 and actually caught the publics imagination they would develop into hits but they mainly don't!! That said I do think it's good radio 1 gives them heavy rotation as popularity isn't just about chart position it's about album sales, ticket sales and buzz amongst other things. Radio 1 giving them spins is a good thing for choice and makes it stand out amongst the commercial channels.

Posted by: Bré 13th July 2016, 03:12 AM

Is there a reason people keep spelling 'airplay' as 'AirPlay'?

That is my only contribution to this thread. x

Posted by: danG 13th July 2016, 06:29 AM

iPhone autocorrects airplay to AirPlay for some reason.

Posted by: *Ben* 13th July 2016, 06:35 AM

AirPlay is a service from Apple, with the help of AirPlay you can stream your music, pictures etc from iPhone to Apple TV.

I'm guessing that's why it autocorrects airplay.

Posted by: Taylor Jago 13th July 2016, 09:16 AM

The guy does have a point about the curated playlists. If they went, the chart might be more interesting. If only there was a way to differentiate those streams from people actually paying attention to the music played.

But airplay is a horrendous idea. No. Never.

Posted by: Iz~ 13th July 2016, 10:03 AM

At least someone is noticing that there is a problem with having the charts so stagnant, it decreases interest in them. Airplay is probably not the answer as said (unless they hold off on commercial stations, wouldn't that be fantastic?).

Somehow, people and radio stations need to start having a higher turnover of the music they listen to but that's something beyond the control of anyone. Maybe when the labels have to step in when too many of their young next-big-things fail.

Indie and rock tends to be more about gaining a fanbase that'll go to your shows when your band pulls into town. If commercial stations caught onto an indie hit it'd probably be big (look at how popular culture refuses to let go of a small number of indie rock hits from the mid 00s), but they tend to need to have something really special about them to get remembered, otherwise on the whole the public seems to prefer listening to pop and RnB forever.

Posted by: Joe. 13th July 2016, 10:11 AM

I thought it was just my phone that changed to AirPlay!


I'm glad some of the people at the top think that maybe the streaming contributions should be reduced. But airplay...No.... Songs like Don't Even Try by Bryan Adams and Ward Thomas' song are high in airplay simply because Radio 2 play them a lot, but nobody's buying them! Airplay obviously does have some effect on popularity and vice verse, but it has nothing to do with how much the public is choosing to spend their money on music....so NO.

Posted by: cqmerqn 13th July 2016, 10:12 AM

Because iPhones autocorrect it to AirPlay as its a feature on the iPhone itself.


EDIT: sorry, just seen that this has already been answered!

Posted by: cqmerqn 13th July 2016, 10:15 AM

The obvious answer is reducing the stream count to 200:1, or even 150:1..

Posted by: danG 13th July 2016, 10:23 AM

Reducing the stream ratio wouldn't make the charts a whole lot fresher, though it would solve the problem of songs like One Dance spending 15 weeks at #1

Posted by: cqmerqn 13th July 2016, 10:30 AM

Yeah it would definitely have lowered the amount of weeks at no 1 for him to about 6.

Posted by: Supercell 13th July 2016, 10:36 AM

Adding airplay would be a terrible idea we'd have songs being no.1 for an average of 5-6 weeks probably longer and they would be more stagnant then they are now.

I must admit they are kind of boring at how slow they have been the past month but then again there's not exactly tons of killer hits or big songs that have been released during that time so people have kept listening to the same stuff. The music industry itself has gone rather stale and boring and has been for the past couple of years and the charts reflect that imo.

I think with regards to streaming that it should be counted differently where its based on individual peoples streams so when someone streams a song 100 times it then no longer counts towards the chart as thats equal to one sale. The problem with that is I guess it would take most people weeks to reach that milestone so sales would be more spread out over a longer period.

Posted by: Mart!n 13th July 2016, 10:39 AM

I wonder if the bigwig at Radio 1 is reading this topic or knows of Buzzjack forums, Airplay will just kill the charts, full stop, the streaming ratio needs to be increased not adding airplay into the mix of things.

Posted by: sm1ffj 13th July 2016, 10:54 AM

Switching from Sunday's has killed off the chart already.

Posted by: Bjork 13th July 2016, 10:56 AM

don't think the solution is changing the ratio, that is calculated on the basis of the revenue generated... people have to accept that downloads are dying and let them die, the solution is not increasing the ratio so that a dying format has more presence in the charts...

Posted by: AcerBen 13th July 2016, 05:50 PM

No, the answer is not to give sales more power. That's not a long-term solution because sales will continue to fall. They need to come up with a cleverer way of using the streaming data.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 13th July 2016, 05:55 PM

Exactly - all that does is delay the inevitable, meaning that in a years time we'll be in exactly the same situation!

Here's a radical idea: how about music stations in the UK actually PLAY SOME NEW MUSIC.

Posted by: Ethan 13th July 2016, 06:36 PM

i can't see apple or spotify accepting anything that diminishes the importance of their services, including curated playlists, in the chart ~ streaming providers are arguably the most powerful lobby at the moment and in terms of providing data effectively have the occ over a barrel, so if the streaming ratio were to be amended it is only going to go down e.g. 1:50...

lol if airplay was included ‘uptown funk’ would only just be leaving the top40, hardly the answer to static charts. funny there is never a ‘problem’ when we have 40 odd #1’s in a year, yet that is far more damaging to the value of having a chart topper and the credibility of the chart!

r1 are just sounding off because they can’t get involved in the curated playlist PAYOLA racket, and are panicking that playlists will diminish the relevancy of their specialized programming~

Posted by: gooddelta 13th July 2016, 07:01 PM

If I was in charge of the OCC I'd make each first stream count 1:1 with a paid for sale, and just wouldn't register any further streaming 'sales' after the first play from each individual account.

That way neither sales or streaming is given any more or less importance, and songs would move around just as they did before streaming was introduced. If a song was to somehow get 14 weeks at #1, it would be because more new people are discovering it as the weeks go by, not because the same people are playing it over and over again.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 13th July 2016, 07:03 PM

I saw an interesting article that suggested Millennials were embracing Spotify/Deezer et. al to the expense of traditional radio, so your point Ethan about R1 panicking is probably well founded - indeed they keep trying to appeal to a younger and younger audience and yet their average audience age continues to rise.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 13th July 2016, 07:05 PM

That wouldn't work because there are a lot of curiosity listens in Week 1 of each single being released. You'd end up with pretty much the most popular new release debuting at #1 each week, plummeting and then perhaps rising back once sales started to pick up. It would look and be ridiculous!

Posted by: Mart!n 13th July 2016, 07:07 PM

And what happens to those acts they don't support, for example Status Quo probably a bad example , well those acts that are over the hill, so to speak

Posted by: dandy* 13th July 2016, 07:08 PM

You could apply that principle but implement it when someone has listened to a track 20 times on Spotify (or another appropriate level?)

Posted by: gooddelta 13th July 2016, 07:14 PM

Not really, how often do we ever see a top ten debut in the streaming charts (or even top 40 )? Discounting 1D related acts, Bieber etc it basically never happens. And even the acts who have gone in at #1 first week have generally maintained their high debut afterwards, presumably picking up a great deal of new fans along the way (particularly Bieber's songs).

Plus that would be no different at all to sales in the OA/OS climate, where acts with big fanbases debut high, slip away quickly and rise up again as airplay comes in. It would look no more ridiculous than the sales chart currently looks.

I'm not saying it's foolproof at all, but I don't agree with the current model either, listens should be capped somewhere at least, maybe at 10 or 20, like Dandy says.

Posted by: ThePensmith 13th July 2016, 07:16 PM

Excuse my French here, but what a complete bunch of deluded bellends Radio 1 have shown themselves to be with that statement. Whether it's this muppet or George Ergatoudis in his constant never ending quest for 'all things new' and treating any artist over the age of 40 as a terminal geriatric, THEY were the ones who lobbied so hard for streaming to be included in official sales data. Now that Drake is at number one for nigh on three months, an artist that THEY championed in particular, they are now suddenly throwing their toys out the pram and wanting it back the way it was. I am almost wishing 'One Dance' to stay at the top a month longer just to spite them all. If you don't like how things are then it's your own sodding fault for wanting it that way in the first place. This has really made me angry

Posted by: Doctor Blind 13th July 2016, 07:19 PM

Yes but we don't have a 1:1 ratio at the moment, we have 100:1.

Olly Murs did around 83,749 on Spotify on Day 1, which fell to 66,948 on Day 2 - if we make an assumption that the difference (16,801) is the number of initial listens by individuals than that is a weighty sale figure and combined with download sales would see him sitting around #3 at the moment.

You suggest that listens should be capped, they are; weekly - you cannot contribute more than 0.7 of a 'sale' which is rounded down to zero anyway. Individually your contribution needs to be backed-up by popularity.

Posted by: dandy* 13th July 2016, 07:26 PM

Actually I think the logical thing is for a user's contribution to be capped whenever it reaches the equivalent of 1 sale over however many weeks it takes to get there. That would then be fine by me as it is converted appropriately into the equivalent of one person 'buying' it.

Posted by: gooddelta 13th July 2016, 07:32 PM

That's what I was going to suggest next. Either way I accept that my previous suggestion was flawed having read DB's argument, but I maintain that something has to change with the calculations, and very quickly. I don't think changing the ratios are the answer, but more stopping individuals being able to contribue forever to the chart position of one song.

Posted by: dandy* 13th July 2016, 07:36 PM

I agree Rich, the main issue for me is also that someone can continually contribute sales to a track when actually someone who buys the track but listens to it more often is capped at 1.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 13th July 2016, 07:38 PM

I think the problem is more with how people access new music not the chart composition - radio station playlists are stale and unadventurous. Admittedly the slow charts feed back negatively, but radio should at least try to break more than 1 hit per week from the established 'safe' artists, and maybe ones that they own (I'm looking at Global and the Wanted etc.). “Tilted” by Christine and the Queens for example I could see easily being a Top 10 hit given good rotation at the major networks (#10 on Shazam) but nobody except Radio 1 and 6Music appear to be on board.

Heart still have “Love Yourself” and “Stitches” in high rotation - but do you see either in the Top 40 ??

Posted by: Ne Plus Ultra 13th July 2016, 08:32 PM

"Tilted" is also playlisted on Radio 2 and Capital (!!!) though so it may actually become a top 20 hit in the end (even more hopefully).

Posted by: Bjork 13th July 2016, 08:38 PM

think that's the best idea I've read so far and seems like the "logic" thing to do, stop counting after a person has reached the equivalent of one sale

Posted by: Doctor Blind 13th July 2016, 08:41 PM

Yeah, but is it just one of those songs that they ‘playlist’ but then don't end up playing... ?

Posted by: JosephStyles 13th July 2016, 08:43 PM

http://comparemyradio.com/tracks/Christine_%2526_The_Queen/Tilted

Posted by: Doctor Blind 13th July 2016, 08:46 PM

Well its only 1 play per day, but it is better than nowt.

Posted by: AcerBen 14th July 2016, 11:40 AM

I think you're on the right line of thinking here, but simply doing this I suspect wouldn't have much effect. How many of the people still streaming One Dance have already played it more than 100 times? Probably not that many.

Only counting the first 10 plays by a user could work. But again it's just a question of how easy it would be for OCC to actually implement this.

Posted by: AcerBen 14th July 2016, 11:44 AM

It's a vicious cycle isn't it?

Posted by: SKOB 14th July 2016, 11:52 AM

I have a problem when people are trying to END a song's life on chart, as 4 months or sth is the longest time a song can be a hit.. It's very strange considering that I'm still listening to the songs that were hits couple of years ago.

Even if it made room for other songs it doesn't mean those other songs somehow become bigger hits. It doesn't work that way.

Plus I think that song's life cycle is actually shorter now that it was for example in the 90s when one could hear Wonderwall among others for 2 years at least.

Posted by: AcerBen 14th July 2016, 12:29 PM

I think if there was more more room for newer songs in the chart, more of them would be getting media support and therefore get more plays. Of course there's also the fact that many people listen to songs that are just in Spotify's chart, or hits playlists, so these same songs get more and more plays.

The official chart and the streaming services own charts don't just reflect consumption - they have a direct effect on it.

Posted by: dj_tim_e 14th July 2016, 12:37 PM

I'd like to see music video views counted. The charts have been manipulated one way or the other so why not add video streams as well.

Posted by: danG 14th July 2016, 12:53 PM

but it's often the case that people stream videos because they want to watch the video rather than listen to the song.

also if video streams were added we'd have songs like Sorry, Love Yourself, Uptown Funk spending even longer in the top 40.

Posted by: Gambo 14th July 2016, 02:00 PM

I appreciate that the sales to audio streams ratio is related to revenue generation, but nevertheless in the notional interests of fairness and ensuring parity between the two sectors in the combined chart, this does sound a rather compelling idea, as it scotches the issue of the same people simply streaming the same song incessantly artificially inflating the fortunes of that title in the singles chart. We seem to have to accept that streaming is rapidly cannibalising the sales market, but my biggest beef with the combination of these two different ways of consuming music is that there's not enough similarity between the two - i.e. a paid-for purchase is a one-off impact regardless of listens thereafter, while a stream can be reflected on multiple occasions, even though 100 have to accrue before they are converted to a 'sale' equivalent. If an initial stream only counted towards a track's tally for the charts, then it would in a way seem a fairer balance between streaming and buying. That said, I suppose it's always been possible for people to buy more than one copy at different stores in different weeks, but then realistically, few if any would seriously look to purchase enough multiple copies of a download (and definitely a CD!) to equate to the kind of numbers added by multiple streams.

Whatever formula they apply to chart compilation however, the main things are that is is as accurate as it can be using that methodology, and that the data being captured is derived from voluntary consumption by the public - NOT programming by broadcasters. Hence, the argument for including airplay in the mix is no greater now than it was previously, including the era when the chart's turnover was many times greater than it is presently. Let the chart reflect whatever the public's consumption each week has been, albeit that it must now be ranked using an awkward juxtaposition of two very different styles of digital consumption. It shouldn't be changed just to make it move differently, and the boss of Radio 1's opinion should have no greater bearing on this than mine, or anyone else's on this site. Nevertheless, the opinions that will count and could skew the way the chart operates (even more than they already have) are industry execs, and if enough see a benefit for them (not buyers, not streamers, not chart fans, not radio/TV watchers), they will of course vote in changes that help deliver that.

Posted by: TheSnake 14th July 2016, 02:18 PM

To be fair things were getting bad at the start of this decade, we had Airplanes, Love The Way You Lie, Ho Hey, Earthquake, Someone Like You etc spending ages (over 25 weeks) in the top 40 of the chart anyway.

Posted by: danG 14th July 2016, 02:39 PM

well if we're ever going to get interesting chart turnover, the best solution to that would be to follow the US and turn the chart into a 'Hot 100' by introducing some recurrent rules.

My idea would be:
- a song's been in the top 40 for 20 weeks and is outside of the top 20 = OUT
- a song's been in the top 100 for 20 weeks and is outside the top 40 = OUT

which is similar to the US rules, but also means we don't get songs spending 40 weeks in the top 40.

Under those rules, last week the following:
- 'Hymn For The Weekend', 'Lush Life', '7 Years', 'Work', 'Light It Up' and 'Fast Car' would've been excluded from the top 40 and replaced with
- 'Tilted', 'Wherever I Go', 'Hype', 'Mamacita', 'We Don't Talk Anymore' and 'Ride', which are much fresher songs you probably agree.

Posted by: zenon 14th July 2016, 02:44 PM

I like your idea then Piece Of Me would be at #33 instead of #39.

Posted by: danG 14th July 2016, 02:48 PM

Also, the chart should remain tracking from Friday to Friday, but the chart show should be brought back to being broadcast on a Sunday, from 4 to 7 pm, with the full top 100 revealed on the site at 7.

This would also solve the problem of the estimated Thursday streaming sales and thus make the chart more accurate.

(I hope the OCC is reading this)

Posted by: TheSnake 14th July 2016, 03:29 PM

Fast Car in the chart for 25 weeks. Last years How Deep is Your Love 32 weeks. Let's compare this to other iconic dance songs of their respective years - 11 weeks in top 40 for Love Inc - Superstar in 2002, 11 weeks also for Shapeshifters - Lola's Theme in 2004, 12 weeks for Fragma - Toca's Miracle in 2000. It just shows how stale the charts are at the minute.



Yes but Wonderwall only had an original run of 17 weeks in the top 40 (and two separate weeks later in 1996 and 2012) which is nothing compared to today's big hits.



I prefer AirPlay to airplay anyway it looks more elegant and sophisticated

Posted by: *Ben* 14th July 2016, 04:50 PM

You can prefer it, but it means something else as airplay. In fact it's a trademark of Apple.


I'm not really a fan of exclusion, even if we have a lot of songs more than 20 weeks in the top 40. Because it's a manipulation of the chart.

Posted by: Dircadirca 14th July 2016, 04:53 PM

Something of interest re: the number of times people are repeating songs on Spotify. If you take the example of Joel Adams, whose song is super high worldwide on Spotify thanks to curated playlists and also only has 1 song on Spotify (at least from what I can see) so you can use the monthly stats on his page. He has had 10,390,095 listeners in the last month, and according to kworb, "Please Don't Go" has been played 37,446,797 times in the last month. This averages out to about 3.6 plays per person in the last month, which doesn't feel like very much at all to me.

Posted by: Suedehead2 14th July 2016, 04:59 PM

Been there, done that

http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=188729

Posted by: TheSnake 14th July 2016, 05:08 PM

You have to admit AirPlay looks pretty epic as a word though compared to the boring looking airplay

Posted by: *Ben* 14th July 2016, 05:13 PM

Sorry I can't admit it, I'm not the best person for that as I was working for Apple, and everytime I see AirPlay I think of the Apple service

Posted by: Ethan 14th July 2016, 05:48 PM

the chart is literally transforming from a sales based ranking to a listening based ranking of songs right now~

you can’t fight progress ~ the streaming revolution is upon us and the brutal truth is there’s only one way this is going - sales are in terminal decline, when they reach the point that they’re deemed defunct, they’ll be completely removed from the chart.

it’s ludicrous to try to give an ailing format parity with one that’s still expanding at an astonishing rate ~ streaming is undisputedly the future ~ it’s like some luddite in 2007 trying to get CD sales extra importance over downloads because rihanna spent 10 weeks at #1~

Posted by: memedh 14th July 2016, 05:52 PM

Dan's idea was great!

Posted by: Qassändra 14th July 2016, 07:48 PM

There's only one solution that I think would make the charts 'work' again: change it so that streaming a track ten times counts as a 'sale', but you can never contribute another streaming sale for that track again. Takes into account the popularity of streaming as a way of consuming music while also bringing the charts back in line with what they used to measure, and probably restores turnover in the charts to how it used to be.