- |
  |
| Is the singles chart better for you with the new rules |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 Sep 25 2017, 04:34 AM
Post
#41
|
|
 rip in peace Dickston
Joined: 29 January 2017
Posts: 9,529 User: 25,045 
      
|
Partly related to this and also just for fun, I was casting back to the chart runs of 2014-2015 when I came across the classic Chandelier by Sia. It spent a solid 46 consecutive weeks within the top 40 between 12/07/2014 and 23/05/2015.
 It's under my understanding that, if the chart consisted of the 'new rules' back then, this wouldn't have spent half as long clogging up the top 40. (Nothing against the song at long, it's one of my favourite songs of recent years) An interesting fact |
 |
 
|
|
Sep 25 2017, 08:25 AM
Post
#42
|
|
|
BuzzJack Regular
Joined: 12 September 2010
Posts: 451 User: 11,831
|
Having let it play out a few weeks I'm still not fond of the new rules. Granted its nice to see more movement but it takes the merit out of songs managing new peaks at the expensive of a more popular song being penalised and doesn't really represent a chart of any means.
It's made a few more songs go top 10 but I don't feel its made a massive change, the no.1 single most weeks would have been there without ACR being in place. I do think there's more fair ways of making a more fluid moving chart but these rules are just a mess and are the occ caving into the whining of the record labels some of which are just not impressed they can't manipulate the chart the way they have done for the past 20 odd years. I won't go into it too much as I feel I've ranted about it loads of times, but if they did base streams off individual accounts / family accounts ect and put a permanent cap in place, that would probably have the same affect as ACR but it would be applied to all songs and create a fair playing field. It would have stopped songs like SOY being no.1 for 14 weeks but given it massive sales for the first, maybe second week. Also it could be used as a more effective tool of measuring track equivalent sales from streaming as it wouldn't be taking into account the repetitive listening, which in all fairness the way the occ have it currently does eliminate some of that but not entirely. Again something a lot have complained about not just in the millionaires thread but also on the comments on the occ website about the news story. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 25 2017, 02:44 PM
Post
#43
|
|
|
BuzzJack Climber
Joined: 29 July 2014
Posts: 198 User: 21,106
|
Contrary to the majority of commentators here, I simply can never acknowledge any singles chart that artifically skews the reality of what the true combined sales/streams rankings are in any given week in actual descending order, notwithstanding all the problems the awkward juxtaposition of the two distinct modes of consuming music has created, such as slow turnover and inability of certain acts or tracks to gain any notable foothold in the upper echelons of the chart. Amending the ratio was bad enough, but excluding certain artist's tracks or quickening the descent of older titles to pretend that others are somehow ranking above them is quite simply cheating.
Moreover, I don't think these restrictions appear to be achieving what they set out to - not that I'm in favour of yet-more qualifications on what can and can't appear in the published official charts, although patently more such skews will follow as they desperately keep tweaking the formula to try and manage the monster that is saturation streaming, and the mouse that is sliding sales. The chart should not have been changed; rather efforts to alter the way in which people often stream music - i.e. lazy listens of pre-configured playlists of the saturation pop hits as background, or possibly refine the calculations as to which kinds of stream are permitted to count towards the chart rankings. But for those who prefer a quicker turnover at any cost, and believe that more new music is genuinely getting a better exposure chart-wise because of these changes, I am pleased. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 25 2017, 02:48 PM
Post
#44
|
|
 there's nothing straight about plump Elvis
Pronouns: they/any
Joined: 21 January 2016 Posts: 13,130 User: 22,895 
     
|
I agree with Gambo. It makes for a more fun listening experience, but it's simply not the chart any more. It doesn't mean anything, a #1 doesn't mean anything. I still hold that they should have just changed what they played in this slot instead of changing the official chart rules arbitrarily to create what they wanted from it while still claiming it's somehow official or equivalent to those of the past.
|
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 19th April 2024 - 10:59 AM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
