There are a lot of indie bands that this would have a really bad effect on. the instant example i can think of is Muse

 

Plug In Baby: 11-29

Newborn: 12-28

Bliss: 22-52

Hyper Music: 24-51

Dead Star: 13-30

Hysteria: 17-43

Sing for Absolution: 16-38

Butterflies & Hurricanes: 14-38

 

the list is endless, including their most recent 11-51 drop.

 

No. Because you wont know if singles are frontloaded until they have charted :hithead:

as Herbs has said, it would be unfair to certain acts if this happened- and their songs are usually brilliant so this would be just unfair, plus some songs that are very highly regarded and good are front-loaded:

 

Seven Nation Army by the White Stripes for example- widely regarded as one of the best songs of the past 10 years and its chart run:

 

7-14-34-58-OUT

 

hence, front-loaded songs arent always awful

 

Thanks, Bray, for the Arctic Monkeys example. So even without (active) front-loading some singles would enter at their highest position, and not only X-Factor winners or charity singles but "normal" bands. That would then be an accurate reflection of their popularity pattern. Actually, even in the old days an iconic band could enter at No 1, but that would always be a huge event. The Jam did it three times, according to polyhex.com

 

@chart wizard/Herbs: I didn't mean to imply that front-loaded singles are of a worse quality. Quality has nothing to do with the points I want to make.

 

@Suedehead2: Yes, that's the question: should chart rules be changed to force it. I think they should but I can see your point. My aim here is to show 1) what the problem is and 2) that chart rules *could* be changed to solve the problem without side effects (apart from the general undesirability of force and rules).

Edited August 16, 201014 yr by zoltzmusik

Oh, and just by the way, songs becoming available from the second they get airplay probably wouldn't make them any less frontloaded - Arctic Monkeys for example did this with Crying Lightning and that still peaked in its first week of release and spent just 2 weeks in the top 40.

 

This is true, but at least the single was available to buy as soon as it went to radio.

You are always going to get a small % of releases that still 'frontload' in this respect because they have a strong fanbase or their last single was high in demand. It happened in the 60s with the Beatles after all. To try to limit this (or ban) as the title suggests is simply out of the question.

 

But I think we're all pretty much in agreement here.

As already mentioned, our charts are based on sales, have always been and should continue to be...regardless of whether records take a month to climb to the top or sell 1m copies one week then drop like a brick the next! thats what make the UK charts THE best in the world! ^_^

For all this talk: right now, Eminem and Rihanna have sold 440,735 thus far. They're just under 200k shy of the #1 spot on the year-to-date listings. Theoretically, they're well within a chance, depending on the impact of X Factor this year, of becoming the biggest selling single of the year without ever having been the biggest selling single of the week! Personally I hope it happens. It would be an amazing achievement, yes, but it would make the weekly #1 position look incredibly silly. Not to mention it would be confusing to the general public. Of course us chart watchers would know why, but those less well-versed in the charts would probably be thinking :huh: if such a thing happened. I think the general public would except a correlation.

 

What we have in 2010 is an interesting scenario where there is seemingly little parity between sales and peak position anymore. I don't think this has ever happened before - even in the late 90s and early 00s the biggest singles all got to #1, with a few exceptions. It's something that has been brought on by the download era on a long-term basis beforehand (see Chasing Cars and similiar) and now the increase in cherrypicking has brought it in a more short-term way as we see currently. In a way this is a bit like the albums chart, I guess, where peak position says very little, though nowhere near as elongated in most cases (and without the many peaks and troughs - so not really like the album chart at all then :lol:) - perhaps the singles chart is simply becoming more like that.

Edited August 16, 201014 yr by superbossanova

@Doctor Blind: I can see I made a mistake in the title. I meant *actively* front-loaded singles should be banned from the chart --- before they enter the chart. In the body of the original post it's clearer: I speak of a "front-loading practice" there. Banning the Arctic Monkeys song because it failed to climb in the second week would be bizarre and was never what I had in mind.

 

@superbossanova: I completely agree. Thanks for the Eminem & Rihanna data, and for putting the point this way. And I think the new lack of parity you mention is a severe problem. It's also a problem in the album chart, but there it's unavoidable. Albums yo-yo depending on the success of the singles released from them, and some albums enter high just based on the quality of the previous album by the same artist, or based on some hype, as you don't "know" an album at purchase in the way you know a single. But I don't think the album chart has that big international standing that the (UK) singles chart has.

I've not read into the original post but how would you ban a song for being front loaded before it's 2nd week in chart?

 

To do that would cause so many blips in chart (i.e. 1-7-OUT).

 

Chart should remain sales based.

 

Maybe minimising time between airplay debut to song release is needed to limit front-loading occurrence.

Edited August 16, 201014 yr by Jamieed

I've not read into the original post but how would you ban a song for being front loaded before it's 2nd week in chart?

 

To do that would cause so many blips in chart (i.e. 1-7-OUT).

 

Chart should remain sales based.

 

Maybe minimising time between airplay debut to song release is needed to limit front-loading occurrence.

 

Indeed, logistically there's no reason why any track can't be put on iTunes etc at the same time it's serviced to the radio stations...

 

This is an interesting solution to something which some people clearly think is a problem and others don't. I personally find front-loaded singles annoying because they disrupt my enjoyment of the singles chart, although I appreciate that isn't on its own a good enough reason to introduce rules banning them or which dissuade record companies from such heavy marketing of singles before release.

 

My own fear is that, with the change-over from physical to download pretty much now complete, climbers will once again start to disappear from the chart. I have enjoyed the charts recently because elements of movement/unpredictability have been reintroduced. The lack of slow-burners was one reason for my disillusion with the Top 40 from about 1998-2006; I was firmly in favour of the inclusion of downloads and indeed the current chart rules on eligibility partly because there was a chance this could (and emphatically did) reintroduce climbers from 2007 onwards. I think this has been good because it has led to more stability of number 1s (longer runs at the top - with no (in my view) tedious high number 1 turnovers a la 1999/2000/2001/2004/2005 and - so far - 2010) and less predictability as songs ascending from the depths to eventual higher peak positions. I'm probably in the minority, but I enjoyed 2007, 2008 and parts of 2009 because the charts slowed down.

 

Now the late 90s/early 00s pattern of front-loading physical sales has effectively been transferred to downloads (and now physical sales are almost inconsequential, save X-Factor, charity singles etc.) it seems as if once again climbers and slow-burners will disappear. I first noticed this in the early part of last year with the increased number 1 turnover after Lily Allen's 4 week run at the top (the last time a single spent a month at number 1 ... now about 18 months ago ... is this likely to happen again anytime soon in the current climate?), although week-on-week climbers still appeared. In 2010 the number 1 turnover rate has increased further and on current trends climbers also seem to be disappearing. It is now up to a month since there were any highest climbers to speak of and in the past couple of weeks only a couple of tracks have improved on their entry positions. More and more singles are entering at their peak position. This could obviously just be a blip, but my point is that it may also be a sign of things to come given the signs and trends. I think this would be a shame for chart-watchers and for the singles chart in general (not, sadly, that it gets much exposure these days). I'm not sure anything can or should be done about it re: chart rules, but it just dismays me that (I suspect) fierce marketing is once again taking its toll on the Top 40.

 

Again, I realize that not everyone will share these views. They are merely just some observations.

 

Ridiculous idea if i'm honest, thats just my opinion.

It would be stupid to ban front-loaded singles.

 

For a start, U2 would never have knocked Bryan Adams off number 1 had a no front loading rule been in place.

 

Second - I think the argument is irrelevant now. Ten years ago when many/most number 1s as well as number 2s and 3s peaked then bombed - then maybe there would be justification (though I don't think so.) Now, though, even the number 30-odds often hang around - take Mumford and Sons as an example. A chart run like Lonestar's 'Amazed' would now be commonplace.

 

JLS may be front loaded and have a short chart run compared to other number 1s, but not compared to McFly's 1-20-39 or even (from 2000) Oasis' 1-4-17-38, and the Manic Street Preachers' 1-4-20-39. Furthermore, even when most #1s debut at #1 (as in 2000/01), then not all sink straight away. Examples: Eminem and Ronan Keating hung around the top 10. Spiller and Madonna sank quite quickly but hung around the 20s/30s for ages.

 

The only major examples of front-loaded big hits tend to be pop now: JLS, Pixie Lott, The Wanted. You could include Cheryl Cole, but I'd argue she stuck around with FFTL and sold a lot after the huge first week sales anyway. So, it would be banning pop hits, essentially.

 

Finally, give indie bands a break! The only way a guitar band could enjoy a big hit chart-wise was from front-loaded sales. With such genres (indie/rock/whatever) finding it hard to chart nowadays, they need front-loading more than ever! (Except if you're Kings Of Leon or Snow Patrol.)

 

 

PS The premise of a non-number 1 being year end number 1 isn't so shocking IMO. Natalie Imbruglia and Wham could well have done it, a couple of years either way. Even Robbie's Angels, a number 4.

Edited August 17, 201014 yr by John_Squire

Front loaded singles actually help the charts in especially in midweeks ;)

 

Anyway welcome to Buzzjack. :) Interesting facts though. :)

I think that if a cover version is in the Top 100 the orginial song should have that position instead

I thought it'd be interesting to note how many of the #1s of 2010 climbed to their position...

 

Bad Romance 3-1: this was released very early and before it had any airplay to speak of so can be considered a genuine climber.

Fireflies 2-1: it débuted at #50 due to a midweek release but can still be called a genuine climber because after a full week of release it still wasn't #1.

Telephone 12-1: this can't really be called a genuine climber, as it was only low to start with due to it charting on cherry-picks.

OMG 2-1: this is a genuine climber for the same reason as Bad Romance.

Gettin' Over You 41-1: not really a genuine climber, the week it was at #41 it wasn't available in the most popular version (with Fergie and LMFAO on it).

Airplanes 3-1: this is not a genuine climber for the same reason as Telephone.

We No Speak Americano 2-1: this is a very genuine climber - there was no reason for it to not be #1 in its first week of release, but still it took until week 3 for it to get #1. This was a held-back release as well.

Club Can't Handle Me 2-1: this was more or less an exact repeat of We No Speak Americano.

 

Replay, Everybody Hurts, In My Head, Pass Out, This Ain't A Love Song, Once, Good Times, Nothin' On You, Shout, California Gurls, The Club Is Alive, All Time Low and Beautiful Monster (and, come Sunday, also Green Light) all débuted at #1.

Edited August 17, 201014 yr by BJBB Bray

I agree that the front loading of sales is largely due to the long time lag between a song first being played and it becoming available to buy. However, I still maintain that the the chart should reflect what is being sold. Any manipulation, whether it's your suggestion or removing songs from a chart after a set period, would mean the chart no longer shows what it is meant to show.

 

There's also the issue of opportunistic cover versions. We've seen over the last year or so that some have sold in sufficient quantities to alarm record companies into rush-releasing the originals. ISTM the more the record companies try to front-load sales, the more of these cover versions will show up.

Pardon... Frontloaded is good for single sales.They tend to trail off by the end of the week, its not doing any harm to the charts whatsoever, in fact single sales are pretty good at the moment, anyhow how can you ban frontloaded sales, we be back to sales of absolutely nothing like 25k for a #1 single.

 

In any case, front-loading will never become the problem it used to be, as it was partly the time-limited availability of CD singles that concentrated sales up front. If a song took a while to grow on you, then it was basically tough sh1t - you couldn't find it by then.

Regarding the original post, I can't agree with his proposed restrictions.

 

It took decades to finally a get an (almost) unrestricted chart, so anything that alters that would IMO be a large backward step.

I've not read into the original post but how would you ban a song for being front loaded before it's 2nd week in chart?

The Official Chart Company could issue guidelines as to when a song would be deemed "available to listen" or "marketed". If such a song is then not available to buy it should be banned from appearing in the chart for, say, one year. As Ethan. has said in this digital age there is no logistical problem with releasing a song immediately. Before a song would be banned the OCC could give a warning, to avoid a ban arising out of negligence or misunderstanding.

 

Important: No song would be taken out of the chart *after* entering it, and in the end very few songs would actually be affected by the ban at all. The front-loading practice would simply stop. What's the point of trying to manipulate your chart peak if you won't appear in the chart anyway.

 

Finally, give indie bands a break! The only way a guitar band could enjoy a big hit chart-wise was from front-loaded sales. With such genres (indie/rock/whatever) finding it hard to chart nowadays, they need front-loading more than ever! (Except if you're Kings Of Leon or Snow Patrol.)

Well, that's the question. Should music that (you think) is good have an unfair advantage in the chart that makes its chart-peaks non-comparable to peaks of other music?

 

And I agree with what Matt147 has said. But I guess that even without a front-loading ban there will continue to be some climbers in the lower reaches of the chart: later releases from albums, already available to cherry-pick once the promotional campaign sets in. (Or possibly record companies will disallow the cherry-picking at some point, in which case we're really back to eight years ago. But at least chart peaks of different singles would be comparable in that case.)

 

Bray's list of climbers to No 1 is interesting. (But I might count 'Telephone' and 'Airplanes' as "genuine" climbers. Definitely not David Guetta 'Gettin' Over You' though. ) It shows most aren't actually later releases from albums, but instead artists that just didn't bother to front-load (e.g. 'Bad Romance', 'OMG': maybe the artists are so "big" internationally that they don't need to manipulate their UK singles chart peak?) and artists that were forced into earlier-than-planned release by opportunistic cover versions (e.g. 'Fireflies', 'We No Speak Americano'). I agree with Vidcapper that opportunistic cover versions ameliorate the problem, but they do so only a little bit.

Edited August 17, 201014 yr by zoltzmusik