http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/ja...singles-release

This is the best news I've heard all day, its about time other labels follow suit

thats great news actually- should ensure that when they chart if is fresh and the chart would be entirely up to date :D

This is good. I like this point especially:

 

In the past, heavy pre-release marketing had tended to mean a new single crash-landed at its peak position on its first week of release – making the top 40 a dull narrative of short-lived new entries leavened by falling songs and fading glamour.

 

When downloads were first fully introduced to the charts, the charts were quite exciting. But now, it's basically the same situation as before downloads were introduced.

 

It would've been interesting to see how Adele and Bruno Mars would've done if their songs had been released when they first hit airwaves.

It is a joke that ppl record music from radio, isn't it?!

 

Actually this new strategy won't help too much unless new releases are released on the same day everywhere around the world...

ABOUT FRIGGING TIME!!!

 

I am sick of waiting for ages for new releases. This will help beat privacy - Can't stop people being illegal I guess, But it will help :)

Edited January 16, 201114 yr by JAM123

Hoorah, this is great and long overdue news! I don't think it would have taken a rocket scientist to have worked this out;

 

"What we were finding under the old system was the searches for songs on Google or iTunes were peaking two weeks before they actually became available to buy, meaning that the public was bored of – or had already pirated – new singles," Joseph added.

 

I'll probably end up spending more money on downloads now - much rather an instant HQ version of a song than living with a crappy youtube rip for six weeks before getting bored of it four weeks in and not buying the song in the end anyway...

Hoorah, this is great and long overdue news! I don't think it would have taken a rocket scientist to have worked this out;

I'll probably end up spending more money on downloads now - much rather an instant HQ version of a song than living with a crappy youtube rip for six weeks before getting bored of it four weeks in and not buying the song in the end anyway...

 

Yes i agree with you. I don't care what people say, I'd rather pay for a good quality version than listen to something with terrible quality just because it was free.

It's brilliant news!

Yes i agree with you. I don't care what people say, I'd rather pay for a good quality version than listen to something with terrible quality just because it was free.

 

Same, in fact I always check first for a song on iTunes before resorting to downloading it illegally. I don't mind paying the 79p/99p if I like it that much.

 

The only thing that would please me more is a worldwide iTunes store, or the ability to purchase songs from other countries stores, but I guess that won't ever be happening because of licensing issues :(

Yes i agree with you. I don't care what people say, I'd rather pay for a good quality version than listen to something with terrible quality just because it was free.

 

???

 

In most cases those for free have better quality than the ones you have to pay for!

This is great from a buyers point of view.

 

However, chart-wize, I can see two problems.

 

Firstly, song by artists with a large fanbase will have an even easier time getting to #1. There's some artists who can put a song on iTunes, and they have enough fans to get it to #1, no matter how much they promote it. I'm sure we're all aware of this. This will just make it easier for them, as they wouldn't have to compete with other "set up" releases.

 

Secondly, a lot of those smaller songs might have a more difficult time getting top 40. Like there's quite a few of those songs by UK artists which struggle to get on the radio, etc, which can only chart top 40 because they can compress all their sales into one week. Having to be put on sale from their radio premiere date would mean their sales are spread over more weeks, so they might have a chart run of 95-89-76-55-64-92-OUT rather than 26-43-77-OUT. Songs such as Insatiable by Nadine Coyle probably wouldn't have made top 40 using that system.

 

NOTE: I am NOT saying this is a bad thing to do. Just pointing out a few things I think might happen as a result of this. I'm personally quite pleased at the direction this seems to be heading though.

Edited January 16, 201114 yr by Eric_Blob

The huge gap between a song being released to radio and being put on sale started around the mid to late 1990s. I said at the time that sales would be lost because people would be bored with the song by the time they were able to buy it. The advent of downloads added another issue, that people would download a song illegally if they couldn't do so legally. It's a shame it's taken record companies so long to reach the same conclusion.

This is great from a buyers point of view.

 

However, chart-wize, I can see two problems.

 

Firstly, song by artists with a large fanbase will have an even easier time getting to #1. There's some artists who can put a song on iTunes, and they have enough fans to get it to #1, no matter how much they promote it. I'm sure we're all aware of this. This will just make it easier for them, as they wouldn't have to compete with other "set up" releases.

 

Secondly, a lot of those smaller songs might have a more difficult time getting top 40. Like there's quite a few of those songs by UK artists which struggle to get on the radio, etc, which can only chart top 40 because they can compress all their sales into one week. Having to be put on sale from their radio premiere date would mean their sales are spread over more weeks, so they might have a chart run of 95-89-76-55-64-92-OUT rather than 26-43-77-OUT. Songs such as Insatiable by Nadine Coyle probably wouldn't have made top 40 using that system.

 

NOTE: I am NOT saying this is a bad thing to do. Just pointing out a few things I think might happen as a result of this. I'm personally quite pleased at the direction this seems to be heading though.

You may be right. However, remember this. The most successful chart act of all time, The Beatles, only had one single enter the chart at number one. All the rest climbed to the top.

This is going to lead to such messy chart runs. It's not going to be like the "old days" of records climbing like this article suggests (for new artists and less established ones, yes), but big artists are going to have runs like 3-11-17-8-4-5... The internet is far too advanced with things like that to go back those days. Every fan knows when their favourite artist is releasing because of websites/social networking etc, and even if they don't iTunes usually has a massive advert up whenever a really big song is released (like H.A.M.)

 

One good thing, though: this may bring slower turnover at the top, with less of these "non-#1s". Going to be interesting to see the impact this has on the chart in the rest of 2011. Hopefully this can also avoid another 'Love The Way You Lie'-type situation and get records to peaks that more match their sales.

 

I would guess our charts may become more like Australia, movement-wise. At least it'll be interesting not knowing how high a song can go, where/when it will peak etc, so from a chart watcher (and as a music buyer) point of view this is very good news.

 

Rock/indie music will probably suffer even more now, though, at least until it becomes marketable again (from the record labels' perspective) - but oh well, I'm used to this at this point :lol:

Edited January 16, 201114 yr by superbossanova

You only have to look at Bad Romance and 4 Minutes to see that not all big comebacks / strong fanbase acts will be able to just debut at #1.

???

 

In most cases those for free have better quality than the ones you have to pay for!

 

The poster i was responding too mentioned you tube rips. They are not good quality usually.

Hoorah, this is great and long overdue news! I don't think it would have taken a rocket scientist to have worked this out;

I'll probably end up spending more money on downloads now - much rather an instant HQ version of a song than living with a crappy youtube rip for six weeks before getting bored of it four weeks in and not buying the song in the end anyway...

 

"What we were finding under the old system was the searches for songs on Google or iTunes were peaking two weeks before they actually became available to buy, meaning that the public was bored of – or had already pirated – new singles," Joseph added.

 

Going back to the point I made about Robbie/Gary when 'Shame' was released. I'm aware that it was generally hated on Buzzjack, but I thought all along it was obvious that had the track been released when the track first went to radio - considering it was even making the news, music video premiered etc... 'Shame' would've definitely gone to #1. Perhaps 'The Flood' may have even gone to no. 1 if released a couple of weeks earlier.

 

It's also a big two fingers to Simon Cowell who relies heavily on "holding back releases" so that acts can perform them exclusively on The X Factor. Although 'Bad Romance' proved that you can release a track early, then watch the track climb the chart as it builds in popularity with the music video providing a much needed boost. Topped off with an X Factor performance which gets the song to no. 1 after six weeks. So Lady GaGa is proof that this method works.

 

Edit; I'm aware there's no X Factor between Jan-Oct. :P Songs can get to no. 1 on musical merit or buy having multiple versions/remixes available to download so when sales are combined, if gives the track an edge over its competition.

This is going to lead to such messy chart runs. It's not going to be like the "old days" of records climbing like this article suggests (for new artists and less established ones, yes), but big artists are going to have runs like 3-11-17-8-4-5... The internet is far too advanced with things like that to go back those days. Every fan knows when their favourite artist is releasing because of websites/social networking etc, and even if they don't iTunes usually has a massive advert up whenever a really big song is released (like H.A.M.)

 

Like The Time. When released, it went straight to #2 on iTunes on very little promotion, fell out of the top 10, then climbed back to #1 a few weeks later.

 

You may be right. However, remember this. The most successful chart act of all time, The Beatles, only had one single enter the chart at number one. All the rest climbed to the top.

 

This brings me to another point actually.

 

In 2010, EVERY #1 by a British artist debuted at #1. If all songs were put for download on their radio premiere date, then the only British #1s we'd've had in 2010 would've probably been Everybody Hurts, Shout, When We Collide, Love You More, The Club is Alive and Pass Out, and maybe The Flood (Take That), Promise This and Please Don't Let Me Go.

 

Again, not saying this is a bad thing. I probably prefer American music anyway. But if this does become the trend, I can see people whining in a couple of years time about how no UK artists apart from JLS and charity songs can get to #1 anymore.

Edited January 16, 201114 yr by Eric_Blob

This is great from a buyers point of view.

 

However, chart-wize, I can see two problems.

 

Firstly, song by artists with a large fanbase will have an even easier time getting to #1. There's some artists who can put a song on iTunes, and they have enough fans to get it to #1, no matter how much they promote it. I'm sure we're all aware of this. This will just make it easier for them, as they wouldn't have to compete with other "set up" releases.

 

Secondly, a lot of those smaller songs might have a more difficult time getting top 40. Like there's quite a few of those songs by UK artists which struggle to get on the radio, etc, which can only chart top 40 because they can compress all their sales into one week. Having to be put on sale from their radio premiere date would mean their sales are spread over more weeks, so they might have a chart run of 95-89-76-55-64-92-OUT rather than 26-43-77-OUT. Songs such as Insatiable by Nadine Coyle probably wouldn't have made top 40 using that system.

 

NOTE: I am NOT saying this is a bad thing to do. Just pointing out a few things I think might happen as a result of this. I'm personally quite pleased at the direction this seems to be heading though.

 

I honestly can't even think of one act with this sort of pulling power personally. Maybe enough to briefly get a comeback into the top 3/5/10 on iTunes on release (like Muse/Coldplay/Jay-Z/Kanye), but interest will quickly drop away and level out before promo kicks in properly and it climbs back up again - could lead to some bizarre chart runs of course!

 

As for the second point, very true but it's a small price to pay. Perhaps the artists will work harder if they really want to crack that top 40? e.g. concentrate A LOT of promo onto the same week to try and push it up a bit. Flash in the pan fanbase hits are something that always annoyed me anyway so I'll be glad to see the back of them, even though they've been massively fading out in the last few years already.