I thought about doing these as a poll, but the questions wouldn't have fitted in the limited available space...

 

1. Do you prefer songs you like to have higher chart positions, or to be available ASAP regardless?

 

2. Do you think that the prestige of a higher chart position (especially for a #1) would generate enough extra sales to offset the loss through piracy of a delayed release?

 

 

British releases tend to do really badly with on air / on flop. I don't know why but 'Price Tag' and 'L.I.F.E.G.O.E.S.O.N.' (ok, and maybe 'Every Teardrop is a Waterfall' but that had a massive Glastonbury effect) aside, the British OA/OF releases underperformed. That said, international releases don't have problems with on air / on sale. 'Party Rock Anthem', 'Give Me Everything', 'Mr.Saxobeat' to name only a few.

British releases tend to do really badly with on air / on flop. I don't know why but 'Price Tag' and 'L.I.F.E.G.O.E.S.O.N.' (ok, and maybe 'Every Teardrop is a Waterfall' but that had a massive Glastonbury effect) aside, the British OA/OF releases underperformed. That said, international releases don't have problems with on air / on sale. 'Party Rock Anthem', 'Give Me Everything', 'Mr.Saxobeat' to name only a few.

 

I never thought to check whether British songs do worse on OAOS than those from other countries.

I prefer tracks to be OAOS. That way it a track can be seen to grow in popularity naturally as airplay picks up and people hear it and buy it, rather than having weeks of pent-up demand with tracks crashing in at their highest position and then plummeting, as almost always happened from about 1995 until the start of the download era. That just seems so 'artificial' to me. I started following the charts properly in 1980 so perhaps it's not surprising that I find OAOS to be the 'proper' way the charts should behave. Somebody who started in 2000 might find several new entries in the top five every week exciting, and tracks taking many weeks to peak rather slow & boring. To them that would be 'normal'.

I never thought to check whether British songs do worse on OAOS than those from other countries.

 

I have. I did it with the #1s from last year.

 

What I got from the results were:

 

- EVERY British song that got to #1 had to be held back and frontloaded. Every single one. Some people say "Oh, it's just coincidence..."

- Of all the British #1s the vast majority of them had terrible chart runs. Off the top of my head, the only very good ones were Pass Out, Written in the Stars and Dynamite.

- EVERY song that climbed to #1 was of foreign origin. All the climbers (Bad Romance, Airplanes, We No Speak Americano, Club Can't Handle Me, etc.) were not from the UK.

- Out of all the foreign #1s, only ONE of them had a poor chart run. Beautiful Monster by Ne-Yo. The rest spent ages in the chart, I think.

 

But anyway. I'm quite lucky here, because most of my favourite songs from recent years have been available from the get-go, but managed to climb up the charts and become really massive hits. Meet Me Halfway, Ridin' Solo, Airplanes, for example. They were released within weeks of Boom Boom Pow, In my Head and Nothin' On You respectively. MMH missed the top 200, Ridin' Solo narrowly missed the top 40 originally, and Airplanes missed the top 20, but after a couple of months they were sitting at the top end of the chart.

 

So I've been really quite lucky in that respect. Another one of my favourite songs since I started following the chart was Never Leave You by Tinchy Stryder. I was delighted when this got to #1. I think I'm happy that it got held back, because it would've probably peaked at #7 or something otherwize. I think in that case I valued it being #1, more than I would've valued it having a really long chart run, and instant availability.

Edited July 7, 201113 yr by Eric_Blob

I prefer tracks to be OAOS. That way it a track can be seen to grow in popularity naturally as airplay picks up and people hear it and buy it, rather than having weeks of pent-up demand with tracks crashing in at their highest position and then plummeting, as almost always happened from about 1995 until the start of the download era. That just seems so 'artificial' to me. I started following the charts properly in 1980 so perhaps it's not surprising that I find OAOS to be the 'proper' way the charts should behave.

 

That was about when I first started following the charts too, so I'm more comfortable seeing climbers. However, OAOS tends to produce double-peaks which can be a little disconcerting. In any case only a minority of singles *can* benefit from OAOS anyway - just those that're released before their parent album. so even without it, we'd still have lots of climbers.

I have. I did it with the #1s from last year.

 

What I got from the results were:

 

- EVERY British song that got to #1 had to be held back and frontloaded. Every single one.

 

Incorrect - Adele's SLY charted for several weeks before it took off...

Incorrect - Adele's SLY charted for several weeks before it took off...

He did his analysis with the #1's from LAST year :P

He did his analysis with the #1's from LAST year :P

 

BUT OAOS didn't even *start* until 2011...

It only seems to be working with foreign releases. Songs that I'm convinced would have hit the top 10 & had good chart runs if held back, such as Beat Of My Drum & Chipmunk's In The Air, have not done well at all.

 

And anyways, holdin back song for UK releases doesn't always mean bad chart runs. Start Without You, for example, increased it's lead over Teenage Dream throughout the week & stayed at #1 for a second week too. It went on to sell almost 300k & stayed in the top 40 for a not atrocious 7 weeks I think.

Edited July 8, 201113 yr by Kyus

It only seems to be working with foreign releases. Songs that I'm convinced would have hit the top 10 & had good chart runs if held back, such as Beat Of My Drum & Chipmunk's In The Air, have not done well at all.

 

And anyways, holdin back song for UK releases doesn't always mean bad chart runs. Start Without You, for example, increased it's lead over Teenage Dream throughout the week & stayed at #1 for a second week too. It went on to sell almost 300k & stayed in the top 40 for a not atrocious 7 weeks I think.

For a number 1 to spend 7 weeks in the top 40 is an atrocious chart performance imo

For a number 1 to spend 7 weeks in the top 40 is an atrocious chart performance imo

Exactly what I was thinking. Personally, I enjoyed the chart last year. The only downside was the turnover at #1 IMO. We had a variety of chart runs. Those that peaked high and plummeted. Those that peaked high and hung around. Those that climbed and stayed. And even a few that climbed and then randomly vanished. :lol: I'm not referring to the quality of songs...because of course alot of the music sounded practically identical last year, but in terms of chart runs, I thought it was brilliant! :D

BUT OAOS didn't even *start* until 2011...

*Officially*, but it was still utilised in 2010 for releases.

I find (and a lot of others do, I think) that the charts are more interesting with OA/OS in place, but many of us would rather see our favourite songs held back so they can chart as highly as possible. My favourite single of the year, "Rope", got to no.22 with virtually no airplay, then proceeded to plummet down the charts and never repeaked. Paramore are suffering a similar fate with "Monster" and I think it's pretty clear that both could have been top 10 singles had they been held back.

Ultimately any song will sell if people are exposed to it and they like it, no matter how it's released. It's common sense.

 

People always go on about how the likes of Chipmunk, Jodie Connor and Nicola Roberts didn't do well with OA/OS. The number of times I heard or saw those three songs combined I can count on one hand, whereas their foreign counterparts that have gone on to be successful ('Give Me Everything', 'Party Rock Anthem', 'Buzzin') I was exposed to them far more when they were first released and at the lower end of the chart, the increased exposure then putting them towards the top. I don't think I've heard or seen the two Britney singles more than couple of times each, and both of them seemed to be deemed OA/OS failures. It really is quite simple, if a song is played and people are exposed to it then there's more chance of them buying it. The public will not buy something they do not hear.

British releases tend to do really badly with on air / on flop. I don't know why but 'Price Tag' and 'L.I.F.E.G.O.E.S.O.N.' (ok, and maybe 'Every Teardrop is a Waterfall' but that had a massive Glastonbury effect) aside, the British OA/OF releases underperformed. That said, international releases don't have problems with on air / on sale. 'Party Rock Anthem', 'Give Me Everything', 'Mr.Saxobeat' to name only a few.

And Birdy - Skinny Love was definitely an on air, on sale success. Why is this song so often forgotten in these kind of discussions? It only peaked at #17 but it had fantastic longevity, probably something it couldn't have achieved if it was held back.

 

But the thing is, most British acts haven't even released on air, on sale! In reality the ratio of hits to flops is probably similar or the same as the one for American acts, it's just almost all American releases have been on air, on sale this year, while the majority of British releases haven't been, so it "looks" like American acts have had more success with it just by sheer volume. And if the likes of Example or DJ Fresh had released on air, on sale they would also have been huge successes (maybe not #1, but anyone who thinks they wouldn't have been high-selling top 5 hits is clearly retarded), it's just they didn't. It's not even fair to compare British and American acts when it's like this and the number of high profile British releases to use this method is not even in the same league in comparison to all the high profile American acts that have used it.

 

*Officially*, but it was still utilised in 2010 for releases.

Yes, but the only #1 from 2010 that was on air, on sale was (correct me if I'm wrong), the Black Eyed Peas. A couple of others like Usher and Flo Rida were released fairly early after only a couple of weeks of hype/promotion though, but those wouldn't be classified as "proper" on air, on sale. On the other hand, all British #1s were held back a month or more.

 

I find (and a lot of others do, I think) that the charts are more interesting with OA/OS in place, but many of us would rather see our favourite songs held back so they can chart as highly as possible. My favourite single of the year, "Rope", got to no.22 with virtually no airplay, then proceeded to plummet down the charts and never repeaked. Paramore are suffering a similar fate with "Monster" and I think it's pretty clear that both could have been top 10 singles had they been held back.

That probably explains why I'm fully in support of on air, on sale with no exceptions then. I don't care where any acts or songs I like chart, I stopped that kind of emotional investment about 5 years ago :lol:

Edited July 8, 201113 yr by superbossanova

Yes, but the only #1 from 2010 that was on air, on sale was (correct me if I'm wrong), the Black Eyed Peas. A couple of others like Usher and Flo Rida were released fairly early after only a couple of weeks of hype/promotion though, but those wouldn't be classified as "proper" on air, on sale. On the other hand, all British #1s were held back a month or more.

 

The vast majority of album tracks are on air, on sale aswell. I can only think of a few recently that were on air before the album was released (e.g. Wonderman and Invincible by Tinie Tempah, Best Thing I Never Had by Beyonce, Blah Blah Blah by Ke$ha).

The vast majority of album tracks are on air, on sale aswell.

 

Or at least 'on sale' - very few actually get heard on the radio...

The vast majority of album tracks are on air, on sale aswell. I can only think of a few recently that were on air before the album was released (e.g. Wonderman and Invincible by Tinie Tempah, Best Thing I Never Had by Beyonce, Blah Blah Blah by Ke$ha).

Yes, but it's not the same thing. That's a complete separate category of its own. Similar, but not the same. The thing about album tracks is they usually, with a few exceptions, start with minimal airplay and then climb their way up the chart. Also in many cases they don't even start exploding properly until the video comes out (see, for example, the latest Katy Perry single).

 

PROPER on air, on sale releases are following a completely different curve so shouldn't be put in the same category as album tracks. They debut high, drop a bit, stabalise, and then climb when the video comes out. The exception is stuff like Alexandra Stan which is basically an unknown release so has no airplay or buzz around it until people start hearing it because nobody knows who she is in this country.

 

With an album release it's basically up, up, up all the time as your airplay is increasing from nothing/minimal to high as you move up the chart, and radio stations can immediately see the affect their support is having. An on air, on sale release would debut with high airplay automatically but then not necessarily make any in-roads afterwards.

 

The former is much easy to market in most cases (unless you're stupid/clueless), while many record companies don't seem to have got the hang of marketing on air, on sale releases yet because it's a completely different ball game altogether and is more about timing in promotion and whatever before radio drops your song altogether after about 2 weeks because it's dropping down the charts already (like what happened with Run The World (Girls), for example).

I'd rather a song straight away, if it's good enough it will be a hit! The songs people are moaning about flopping were crap.