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 :(

 

I totally agree with the bit i put in bold :) I also like to buy the song, It helps the artist. I would be pissed if i was a singer and my songs were getting downloaded illegaly loads and my sales were rubbish, Which resulted in me getting dropped or something!

 

Also have you tried amazon? They are usually cheaper and they download straight into your itunes account when you have set it up just like itunes :)

 

I like the idea of a worldwide itunes, But that would never happen as for reasons you mentioned like, Licensing Issues. Its unfortunate.

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:

 

Very true, and indeed there shouldn't really be any non #1's any more using this system, well apart from those songs from record labels that aren't involved in this yet - and hopefully they'll follow suit sharpish.

Yay! This will deffo spice up boring charts, and solve the problem of songs' release dates being too far away!

Yay! This will deffo spice up boring charts, and solve the problem of songs' release dates being too far away!

 

Yes i wouldn't have to wait for Ke$ha if this system was adopted.

I totally agree with the bit i put in bold :) I also like to buy the song, It helps the artist. I would be pissed if i was a singer and my songs were getting downloaded illegaly loads and my sales were rubbish, Which resulted in me getting dropped or something!

 

Also have you tried amazon? They are usually cheaper and they download straight into your itunes account when you have set it up just like itunes :)

 

I like the idea of a worldwide itunes, But that would never happen as for reasons you mentioned like, Licensing Issues. Its unfortunate.

 

Yep, I use Amazon usually (unless the difference is only 10p and then bizarrely I tend to stick to iTunes - less faffing about and random money going out of my bank account) but I have loads of iTunes gift cards to use up at the moment :lol:

Yep, I use Amazon usually (unless the difference is only 10p and then bizarrely I tend to stick to iTunes - less faffing about and random money going out of my bank account) but I have loads of iTunes gift cards to use up at the moment :lol:

 

I don't use them gift cards i have an account so i don't use them. A lot of people buy them instead of setting up an account!

 

The 10p does make a difference to me when I'm on a student budget! Sounds sad but oh well.

 

 

 

 

It's a great plan but I'm not sure every record company will follow this rule post haste...

Interesting how they're comparing the change to that of January 2007 when all download sales were added to the UK singles chart. In 2007 there were just 17 different UK #1 hits - most of them really defined the period when they were no. 1 even if sales were lower back then. I've always thought the UK no. 1 should be worthy of its status - therefore strong sales and the ability to remain at no. 1 for a few weeks.

 

The less non no. 1s there are, the better. 2007 and 2008 were excellent for no. 1 singles. 2009 was good but this was when record lables took advantage of the "holding back" release strategy since 2005 leading to a big increase in no. 1 hits.

Very true, and indeed there shouldn't really be any non #1's any more using this system, well apart from those songs from record labels that aren't involved in this yet - and hopefully they'll follow suit sharpish.

I hope so, too - or the turnover period might indeed become very messy (as this article implies). I can just imagine now some random songs taking advantage of lower sales (due to less front-loading from the record companies involved here) to front-load their way to a #1 debut, and we'll all be like "WTF?!" :nocheer:

 

Also, is this going to be done gradually or are these record labels just suddenly going to unleash all their upcoming releases that have been sent to radio on a certain date? :o This is probably a stupid question and I'm sure it's probably the former, but just in case.

 

Maybe this is why they bought Britney forward - isn't Jive an off-shoot of Sony? :unsure:

It will be funny if the turnover at #1 is an Universal/Sony act for the next 12 months, other labels will have to follow suit, otherwise Universal/Sony will make up huge profits over the year.

As long as they NEVER include airplay in the official singles chart this is the best news we've had in a long while. Would that be why they bought Britney forward then?

As long as they NEVER include airplay in the official singles chart this is the best news we've had in a long while. Would that be why they bought Britney forward then?

 

I agree. That would definitely be the worst thing that could ever happen. I'd actually cry, seriously. Oh yay, Alicia Keys, JLS, Lady Gaga, Take That, Bruno Mars, Cee-Lo Green and The Wanted at #1 all year. Um, no thanks. :lol: I somehow don't like the idea of the charts not being fully in control of the public. :lol:

 

Anyway, this would be great for the Glee tracks, as they can still front-load themselves, so they'll get even higher peaks! Yay! :D

Edited January 16, 201114 yr by Eric_Blob

Anyway, this would be great for the Glee tracks, as they can still front-load themselves, so they'll get even higher peaks! Yay! :D

 

I fail to see how this approach would change anything for the Glee tracks?

about time too - let's hope this becomes the "norm" by the years end!

I fail to see how this approach would change anything for the Glee tracks?

 

That's exactly the point!

 

Most other songs won't have front-loaded sales anymore, but the Glee tracks still will be, because like 95% of their promotion is over on Monday(?) evenings, so the Glee songs would, in theory, chart higher in comparison.

Coldplay's Speed Of Sound from 2005 would definitely have been number 1 if it had been available immediately. I reckon Take That's The Flood and Robbie and Gary's Shame would have done so as well.

Finally. UK always had to wait so long.

But I really don't like releasing it immediately after it hits airways. I think there should be a week or two before it's released but it should also depend on artist and song.

 

I wonder what means that song will become available as they go to radio? Will there be some official radio release date or they will actually send a song to itunes the immediately after some station plays it? And does that mean we can expect digital releases on any day of the week, not sunday or monday?

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.

 

I agree with this. I think that newer and smaller artists will have a much more difficult time of getting into the top 40 under this system.

Finally. UK always had to wait so long.

But I really don't like releasing it immediately after it hits airways. I think there should be a week or two before it's released but it should also depend on artist and song.

 

I wonder what means that song will become available as they go to radio? Will there be some official radio release date or they will actually send a song to itunes the immediately after some station plays it? And does that mean we can expect digital releases on any day of the week, not sunday or monday?

 

In the US, they don't usually do it exactly on the same day. Like the radio premiere can happen 3 days before the song is released. They're just closer to each other.

 

This does bring up some issues though. Like as you said, there's some radio stations which play songs without the songs being "sent" to them.

 

Like a station that I listen to quite a bit has been playing That's All She Wrote by T.I. and Eminem quite a lot. That song isn't even a single. It's an album track from T.I.'s album, which hasn't been released yet. Would they have had to put the song up for download then, even though the album isn't released? Or would this mean radio stations would no longer be allowed to play songs like that anymore? :(

 

There's other similar issues aswell. Like I've heard Airplanes, Part II on Radio 1 before, yet it's album only, so in that scenario, would they be forced to release it, or would Radio 1 be forced not to play it?

 

However, my guess is that these wouldn't be hard and fast rules which people would be forced to follow. It'd just become general practice, so if appropriate, they could keep back a release, or let a radio station play a track early if they wanted.

Like a station that I listen to quite a bit has been playing That's All She Wrote by T.I. and Eminem quite a lot. That song isn't even a single. It's an album track from T.I.'s album, which hasn't been released yet. Would they have had to put the song up for download then, even though the album isn't released? Or would this mean radio stations would no longer be allowed to play songs like that anymore? :(

 

Radio stations sometimes receive 'buzz' tracks from promo companies months in advance of the release to 'test the waters,' to see if there is a positive reception, even if they don't intend it to be a single. If they had received the track illegally, they could probably lose their Ofcom licence.