No, for the simple argument that a chart is there to reflect actual sales. It's primary purpose ISN'T to be "entertaining".

If a song sells 60k in one week, and 10k the next, that should still be reflected.

The charts as you refer as of 2002 ( charts entering at their peak) were actually this way for 10 years, from mid 1995 to April 2005. Singles during this time would enter at their peak only to drop like a stone with the average chart longevity was around 4 to 6 weeks.

April 2005 was when downloads were integrated into the main chart. So after 10 years of boring, uninteresting charts, they had become interesting again as you didn't know if a single would climb or fall. It was at this time the OCC increased the official chart from Top 75 to Top 100.

 

The chart had a spell as a Top 100 from 1983 to 1991 when it was then reduced back to Top 75 due to falling sales.

Rather than songs being banned for being frontloaded.. I think the time between the single getting its first play on radio and its actual release date should be minimised

By the time songs come around to charting.. I feel they are way too overplayed and I no longer wish to buy/listen to them

 

& as Electroboy said all 3 of the JLS singles have done very well and spent a lengthy time in the charts, so I wouldn't have used them as an example for frontloaded songs.. The Club Is Alive however will spend about 10 weeks max in the top 100, but thats mainly due to it being a poor song and not as wel received

 

Beat Again: 33 weeks in the top 100

Everybody In Love: 19 weeks in the top 100

One Shot: 23 weeks in the top 100

 

One of the reasons also that you can't compare One Shot to their other singles that got to number 1 is because the album had already sold 1,000,000+ by the time One Shot was released.. So if the album had not sold that much it would have been possible that the single could have done better

Rather than songs being banned for being frontloaded.. I think the time between the single getting its first play on radio and its actual release date should be minimised

And how would you minimise it? That's exactly what my proposal is about. In effect, tell them "release it quickly or it won't get listed in the chart". The mere threat will be enough; they will all release it quickly, since chart success is important to them (otherwise they wouldn't practice the front-loading in the first place). How would *you* propose to minimise it?

 

As for the JLS example, the point I was trying to make is that 'One Shot' made only No 6 but (and that's very bad) you can't conclude with some confidence from that that it sold less than the No 1 singles. (Although it may have, I don't know, but at least you can't *conclude* it.) A main reason for it not getting higher than No 6 was lack of front-loading, since it was always available as an album track.

 

And just to make this clear: for me, although I prefer interesting charts, it's not primarily about excitement but about the correlation between sales and chart peaks (and about fairness). I'm not the only one to appreciate this point, several others have done so --- the question is only whether the problem is bad enough to warrant a new rule. Here is a good quote from yesterday:

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.

 

 

It's a shame really as the top 10 has become alot more static in the last few years (and therefore more enjoyable, having a top 10 hit is much more of an achievement now) but the number one slot has become a joke. Adding an airplay component is not a bad idea, but the playlists are so controlled (I did not personally like The Wanted's song, but the fact that it sat on the top spot and radio 1 still refused to play it shows how dangerous counting airplay could be. But I heard rumours of streaming counting? This seems like quite a good idea as the likes of spotify grow. As long as a streams are ratio'd down so that a legal download still has the weight of importance on the chart, it could be a good way to move the chart forward.

Some more thoughts on reflection. In rejecting zoltzmusik's proposal some members have commented that the singles chart isn't there just for entertainment; it should primarily reflect sales, the idea presumably being we accept this whatever sort of chart is produced. I can agree with this, but it works both ways. Back in 2007/2008 when the charts were their most slow-moving of the 00s, arguments could equally have been made for trying to artificially speed them up (a sort of opposite from what's been argued now) - and this could have similarly been countered with the view that the charts are there to record sales, irrespective of movement. Indeed, that is the counter-argument I would have used back then (so I definitely can't really turn round now and be in favour or new chart rules to coax the chart into behaving how I would like it to I guess).

 

That said, I think many of us do find the charts interesting/exciting/entertaining for a variety of reasons, eg high profile chart battles for top spots, long/short runners, and tracing slow-burners up the listings. If the slow-burners disappear it will, for me, remove a big part of the entertainment value of following the Top 40.

 

This debate may become more and more relevant in the next few months. I didn't really follow the singles chart as much back in 1995 (when as we know the same thing started happening mid-'95 with physicals) but I'm sure commentators noted the same trend back then. Interestingly, today's mids show no climbers (I think), and I'm not sure this is likely to change much as the week progresses. Could this be the first week in a *very* long time that nothing climbs? Is it premature to say that, like 1995-2006, climbers will soon be, largely, absent from the Top 40? A cursory check of recent charts show that over the last 6 weeks the Top 40 tracks genuinely climbing from within the Top 40, ie improving on their entry position, or going back up to match their peak position (not counting tracks that temporarily reverse their decline if they don't outdo their peak position), have been: 2, 2, 1, 6, 7, 2. I haven't time to check, but I'm fairly sure this would compare less favourably with 2009 and undoubtedly less favourably with 2008 and 2007.

 

As I said previously, the past 3 weeks could be blip, or it could be that we are watching the 2010 version of the mid-'95 changes take place. It may be of course that we won't know for a year or so ... after all we still had the odd climber within the Top 40 (not to mention the odd record climbing to number 1) in the mid-'95 to 1998 era before number ones pretty much exclusively entered at the top from 1999-2006 signifying the ultra fast-moving, peak-entering Top 40 phase which in my view detracted from chart-watching. The slight anomaly in this period being mid-2002 and 2003 where, whilst climbers remained largely absent, singles tended to spend longer at number 1 with notable 3/4 weeks runs, and of course the Black Eyed Peas 6 week #1 run in 2003 with 'Where Is The Love'. Time will tell in 2010.

Edited August 17, 201014 yr by Matt147

It's interesting how quickly the record companies have adapted to the new climate really.

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.

 

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.

It's true that there were a fair few mismatched peaks/sales, but they were far less commonplace than now IMO. Personally I find it quite annoying that Mumford & Sons only peaked at #24 but to a more casual chart fan who doesn't have access to sales/chart runs it's no bigger of a hit than countless other flop singles that peaked so low. Now if we were in the physical era, Mumford & Sons might have been able to get top ten and then dropped down the chart in typical indie-hit style back then, but at least then its peak would have been a bit more representative of how well it's really done. That's the whole issue I have with the charts at the moment really. Similarly it annoys me that all these big-selling #2s don't reach #1. Usually there's always one or two, like La Roux last year, but this year seems to be taking it to logical extremes. Though at least the #2 would still be big hits going by chart position, unlike Mumford & Sons. Train are another strong example at the moment.

 

By the way, it's interesting that people are talking about indie sales being frontloaded. They used to be the most frontloaded of all genres, yes, but in the last few years there's been a noticeable shift to a small number of "slow burner" indie tracks. Mumford & Sons being one, Vampire Weekend's A-Punk was kind of another, MGMT had some pretty long chart runs in 2008, and I think the XX - Islands could become another one soon too. It probably doesn't help that these kind of artists don't really care enough about chart positions to hold these releases back to maximise sales.

 

I don't really understand your last point? Natalie/Robbie/Wham! were all released at the end of the year so they didn't do it - if their sales were concentrated into one year, yes, but then I'm not sure any of them would have been as big outside the Christmas market (well, forgetting that Wham! is a Christmas song for starters)...

 

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.

I hoped that a long time ago, but it only appears for the really big hits (I Kissed A Girl, When Love Takes Over, We No Speak Americano being the only occasions where I can really think it made an impact) so I don't think that's enough to make a really big change. Can you imagine one of these cover versions becoming a #1 hit? Maybe that's what it will take for the record companies to change their strategy. :lol:

 

It's a shame really as the top 10 has become alot more static in the last few years (and therefore more enjoyable, having a top 10 hit is much more of an achievement now) but the number one slot has become a joke. Adding an airplay component is not a bad idea, but the playlists are so controlled (I did not personally like The Wanted's song, but the fact that it sat on the top spot and radio 1 still refused to play it shows how dangerous counting airplay could be. But I heard rumours of streaming counting? This seems like quite a good idea as the likes of spotify grow. As long as a streams are ratio'd down so that a legal download still has the weight of importance on the chart, it could be a good way to move the chart forward.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did that eventually, but I'm not sure how it would work. I think it would go some way to stopping the bulk fanbase frontloaders though, but it would probably send the charts back to 2007/2008 level of slowness while everyone adjusts.

 

Here is the current Spotify top 10 by the way (which seems to be relatively up to date):

01. Airplanes - B.o.B feat. Hayley Williams

02. California Gurls - Katy Perry feat. Snoop Dogg

03. Not Afraid - Eminem

04. Alejandro - Lady Gaga

05. Airplanes Part II - B.o.B feat. Eminem & Hayley Williams

06. Pack Up - Eliza Doolittle

07. Club Can't Handle Me - Flo Rida feat. David Guetta

08. We No Speak Americano - Yolanda Be Cool & DCUP

09. Hey Soul Sister - Train

10. Ridin' Solo - Jason Derulo

 

Love The Way You Lie doesn't seem to be available though, which is a shame as we can't quite compare how it would be doing here. Interestingly enough the "frontloaded" The Wanted are down at #72, and The Saturdays are nowhere at all!

It's a shame really as the top 10 has become alot more static in the last few years (and therefore more enjoyable, having a top 10 hit is much more of an achievement now) but the number one slot has become a joke. Adding an airplay component is not a bad idea, but the playlists are so controlled (I did not personally like The Wanted's song, but the fact that it sat on the top spot and radio 1 still refused to play it shows how dangerous counting airplay could be. But I heard rumours of streaming counting? This seems like quite a good idea as the likes of spotify grow. As long as a streams are ratio'd down so that a legal download still has the weight of importance on the chart, it could be a good way to move the chart forward.

 

 

I read somewhere, maybe it was a MW article which I posted a few months back on here or someone else did, that they were going to add sales of streamlining at some point, goodness knows how it will work. The article must be around still, just a case of shifting through a lot of crap along the way, but I don't have the patience for it. :(

 

 

found it :D http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?s...=95966&st=0

I think it is important that a legal purchase still has more importance on the chart then a stream of a song, but it might be time to incoporate streams. At university we pretty much all stream, little actual downloading. It is just about getting a fair ratio - do you say 10 streams are equal to 1 download? More? Less?