I'm not sure. Isn't Syco a part of Sony? So that would cover all the X Factor artists (and Labrinth :lol:). I'm not 100% sure about the other labels though.

 

Also, on a bit of an off-topic note. Simon Cowell is the head of Syco. I noticed that if you get the first two letter of his first and last name, and put them together, you get Sico! :o

That's because Syco is named after him, dear. As is Simco (which I believe is an umbrella name for everything that he produces? Something like that.) He also had a label called S in the 90s.

 

This is SUCH a good idea. Like many people have said, we've known this is what's needed for years but it's obviously taken this long for the important people to cotton on. The charts are so much more interesting when we have slow burners and less flash-in-the-pan 1#s.

I'm not sure. Isn't Syco a part of Sony? So that would cover all the X Factor artists (and Labrinth :lol:). I'm not 100% sure about the other labels though.

 

Also, on a bit of an off-topic note. Simon Cowell is the head of Syco. I noticed that if you get the first two letter of his first and last name, and put them together, you get Sico! :o

 

 

iknow most uk artists are on island!!

i think its good as it gives people the choice not too illegally download - after all if its available on itunes straight away MOST people wont mind paying 79p for it, although there are always a few who think music should be free when the relaity is if there was no business end to things there would be less creativity and artist would have to pay for all their promo and gigs etc meaning poorer people wouldnt have the chance to show their talent!

 

actually without the business end there would be much more creativity, major record labels (such as Sony and Universal) only sign and release very generic acts and music, stuff they know will sell big, because they don't sign acts on creativity, they sign them on the fact that they will make them money. I see A LOT more creativity and intresting music from acts who do pay for all their promo and gigs, but the majors are scared that said artists won't sale, the music industry has changed and the major record labels still don't understand this.

 

fair enough more people will probaly buy it off itunes straight away where they would have just downloaded it illegally before, but it won't stop most people, all this means is the track will be on what.cd faster so i can download it for no money faster.

I'm confused. Are they putting the releases on the online retailers sooner or sending the tracks to radio later? I guess it's the same overall, but if in fact they are sending to radio later it could mean people trying to find the rumoured new single by their favorite artist on an illegal site or somewhere else as they now can't hear it on radio either!

Just thinking...back when downloads first started to kick in... Labels would release singles in advance of there release date... (I can think of The Fray's How To Save A Life as a prime example...) Singles would get released way too early and the chart would be as slow as a snail...

 

I can already picture people getting excited when Joe Bloggs falls one place to #36 :(

That said... Songs will sell more so I suppose it will be a good thing afterall and it may be a good thing if the 80s chart runs (where practically every song slowly climbed to the top and then plummeted...) kick in! Would be kinda cool not knowing what was gonna go #1!

Just thinking...back when downloads first started to kick in... Labels would release singles in advance of there release date... (I can think of The Fray's How To Save A Life as a prime example...) Singles would get released way too early and the chart would be as slow as a snail...

 

I can already picture people getting excited when Joe Bloggs falls one place to #36 :(

That said... Songs will sell more so I suppose it will be a good thing afterall and it may be a good thing if the 80s chart runs (where practically every song slowly climbed to the top and then plummeted...) kick in! Would be kinda cool not knowing what was gonna go #1!

 

Yeah, I'm a bit worried about that. Looking at the charts in some of the other countries that do this, they are just SOOOOOOOO slow. Now it's pretty cool when a song goes 37-33-31-28-24-18-14-10-11-13-12-15-16-18-21-25-30-32-.... If every song in the charts has chart runs like that, it'll be an absolute snooze-fest, although I won't mind having Tinie Tempah or Rihanna at #1 for 8 weeks or whatever. :lol:

Popjustice seems to suggest that contrary to my previous post, this could see more guitar bands reaching the top 40. Whilst in one respect I understand their logic (a single's sales will be spread out over a 6 week period, rather than one large spurt of sales, meaning that you will theoretically need less sales to crack the top 40), I can't help feel that they've got it wrong.

Another nail in the coffin for HMV then

Yeah, I'm a bit worried about that. Looking at the charts in some of the other countries that do this, they are just SOOOOOOOO slow. Now it's pretty cool when a song goes 37-33-31-28-24-18-14-10-11-13-12-15-16-18-21-25-30-32-.... If every song in the charts has chart runs like that, it'll be an absolute snooze-fest,

 

I don't think we need worry about that - only a small proportion of songs have such extended runs, and the early release of the next batch of singles should push the older ones out - so I anticipate little next effect of length of chart runs.

 

 

I don't think we need worry about that - only a small proportion of songs have such extended runs, and the early release of the next batch of singles should push the older ones out - so I anticipate little next effect of length of chart runs.

 

But won't all (or most) songs have chart runs like that? I mean, this way, there we won't be getting anymore fast-paced chart runs like 2-10-18-25-OUT, like Nicole Scherzinger or Diana Vickers. Doing it this way, those tracks might not have even made the top 10. Diana's track got its radio premiere on 1st January 2009, but it got released in, like April or something?

 

Last year, the only songs that climbed to #1 were US songs. So we can expect to see more songs like OMG, Club Can't Handle Me, Airplanes, etc. at #1, and they'll probably have longer stints at #1, not being interrupted by those high debuting UK songs.

 

From a chart point of view, I think this could be pretty boring, but on the whole, it's a good thing imo. I mean seriously. We've had to wait like 4 months or something for Ke$ha's new song. :drama: It's just embarrassing.

Last year, the only songs that climbed to #1 were US songs. So we can expect to see more songs like OMG, Club Can't Handle Me, Airplanes, etc. at #1, and they'll probably have longer stints at #1, not being interrupted by those high debuting UK songs.

 

You mean non-British songs :P There are other nationalities

But won't all (or most) songs have chart runs like that? I mean, this way, there we won't be getting anymore fast-paced chart runs like 2-10-18-25-OUT, like Nicole Scherzinger or Diana Vickers. Doing it this way, those tracks might not have even made the top 10. Diana's track got its radio premiere on 1st January 2009, but it got released in, like April or something?

 

Ah, but it's only pre-album songs that this'll affect anyway (those are probably only about 1/3rd of the total), later songs already climb up the charts at their own pace.

 

Last year, the only songs that climbed to #1 were US songs. So we can expect to see more songs like OMG, Club Can't Handle Me, Airplanes, etc. at #1, and they'll probably have longer stints at #1, not being interrupted by those high debuting UK songs.

 

ISTM the best way to solve this is for radio to give priority to home-grown artists/genres.

 

I can't quite understand why people can't get their heads round this. It is not going to mean that every song is going to have a prolonged chart run. Certain artists will still have heavily front loaded sales. A new song will be advertised that it is going to radio on a certain date and those fans will still rush out to buy it even if they haven't heard it, just as they have done throughout time. Artists such as Lady GaGa, Rihanna, McFly (not so much these days) could release 'Twinkle Twinkle Little Star' as a totally new song and it would have massive first week sales because unfortunately some artists fanbases would buy a single of their idol blowing wind if it was released. This will never change. I can't help but have a wry smile as the Britney single struggles up iTunes after all her supporters had convinced themselves it was definitely going to be number 1 when released. This could actually help certain artists get an instant number one, such as Take That. 'The Flood' would have definitely been number one if it had been released to download immediately but people were already getting bored of it after six weeks. The songs that will get prolonged chart runs will be the ones that deserve it, that captures the public's imagination over a period of time. It is very rare that I will like a song immediately that I feel I need to buy it. I hated Rihanna 'Only Girl (In The World)' initially but within a few weeks I loved it and probably purchased it on it's third week. In some ways this will give a more realistic chart and hopefully bring it back to when it was at its best (70/80's). We hopefully won't get this massive turnover of number ones that ruined the credibility of the chart in the late 90's/early 00's and has started to come back in the last couple of years. The so called 'non no.1's' will become less frequent which can only be a good thing. Songs such as 'Love The Way You Lie' would have probably got the number one it deserved (not one of my favourites though), as it has proved with it's chart run and it's position at the top of the best sellers for 2010. The chart really does lose credibility when songs such as 'Once' and 'Dirtee Disco' are credited as number 1's but couldn't even get in the Top 100 sellers of the year. And one of the main reasons why more and more songs have such long chart runs (obviously being available to download at any time is a major factor) is that their is not enough decent new material being released week in/week out and the radio stations who continue to saturate the airplay with the same artists.

Another nail in the coffin for HMV then

Why do you think that? If sales of physical singles fall as a result of this (and I don't think they will), it will make almost no difference to HMV. Singles make up a tiny proportion of their turnover.

everyone is saying it's only american songs with long chart runs but tinie tempah is still comfortably in the top 75 after 40 something weeks in the charts, there are exceptions to this so called rule

Best music news I've heard for years.

we could have a coldplay - christmas lights style release!!! :o

 

also - what artists are on sony/universal?

Loads and loads of acts. At least half of this week's top 40, probably more.

 

Some of the "major" acts that this would affect would be Black Eyed Peas, Rihanna, Take That, JLS, Cheryl Cole, Lady Gaga, Kings of Leon, Jay-Z... you get the idea :lol: They're the two biggest record labels in the world with loads and loads of sub-labels that come under their umbrella group...

 

EDIT:

 

Found this list of Sony Music artists:

http://www.sonymusic.co.uk/artists/

 

And this is Universal Music:

http://store.universal-music.co.uk/restofw...ts/icat/artist/

Edited January 18, 201114 yr by superbossanova

Is it going to happen In Ireland? Cuz a lot of songs are doing that At the moment ( What the Hell, Hold It Against Me, We R Who We R, Higher (Taio & Kylie etc...) Not too sure I'll like it :-(

actually without the business end there would be much more creativity, major record labels (such as Sony and Universal) only sign and release very generic acts and music, stuff they know will sell big, because they don't sign acts on creativity, they sign them on the fact that they will make them money. I see A LOT more creativity and intresting music from acts who do pay for all their promo and gigs, but the majors are scared that said artists won't sale, the music industry has changed and the major record labels still don't understand this.

 

fair enough more people will probaly buy it off itunes straight away where they would have just downloaded it illegally before, but it won't stop most people, all this means is the track will be on what.cd faster so i can download it for no money faster.

 

 

how will all new creative acts beable to afford to play the gigs across the country and promote themselves without investment though?

Yeah, I'm a bit worried about that. Looking at the charts in some of the other countries that do this, they are just SOOOOOOOO slow. Now it's pretty cool when a song goes 37-33-31-28-24-18-14-10-11-13-12-15-16-18-21-25-30-32-.... If every song in the charts has chart runs like that, it'll be an absolute snooze-fest, although I won't mind having Tinie Tempah or Rihanna at #1 for 8 weeks or whatever. :lol:

 

 

the worry is that more acts will have chart runs like the time by the black eyed peas, only artifically rising to no1 after a major piece of tv promo after 6 weeks in the top 40?!!