I reckon that once a song has reached 20 consecutive weeks on the official chart then it should be disqualified. It would help more lesser known acts break the top 40. Take this week for example Someone Like You by Adele, The Edge Of Glory by Lady Gaga and Give Me Everything by Pitbull would now be ineligible and Noel Gallagher's AKA What a Life at #38 would be enjoying a third week in the top 40, Jay-Z's Otis would be at #39 and David Guetta's Little Bad Girl would be at #40. Also Nicola Roberts would have charted at #38 with Lucky Day last week rather than #40.

Edited October 4, 201113 yr by zenon

That's like bringing the deletion rule back we had in the past, nah. If a track is out there in the public domain it should stay in the charts as long as it takes, I know they get boring after awhile

No, that just breaks the real reason for a chart, a chart based on sales position. Having only 20 points and then getting disqualified makes it an unreliable one tbh.

No, of course not. If a song is still selling enough to be in the chart then it should BE in the chart. I'm a little tired of the charts being clogged up with the same songs week after week, but that's just the way things are and imposing rules on how long a song should chart is unfair to popular music. At the end of the day if a song fails to make the top 40 it simply didn't sell enough, disqualifying other songs isn't the way to solve that.

No, the chart should reflect what is being bought. It actually reminds me of something I meant to say in this week's commentary. In the US, they changed the rules to impose a limit on how long an album could stay in the chart. That was done specifically to exclude Dark Side of the Moon which had been in the chart for a very long time and showed no sign of leaving.

No, the chart should reflect what is being bought. It actually reminds me of something I meant to say in this week's commentary. In the US, they changed the rules to impose a limit on how long an album could stay in the chart. That was done specifically to exclude Dark Side of the Moon which had been in the chart for a very long time and showed no sign of leaving.

 

Wasn't that a rule they once had and got rid of? Or have they brought it back now?

 

Then again, the US charts are completely messed up with their ridiculous rules anyway so another one would hardly hurt.

 

(For the record, as a general rule, I disapprove of any 'a song gets disqualified if [x]' situation with the exception of excluding free downloads)

If there had been a 20 week rule on May 16th 2009 it would have allowed U2's Magnificent to enter the top 40 thanks to the disqualifications of King's Of Leon's Sex On Fire and Use Somebody!

Wasn't that a rule they once had and got rid of? Or have they brought it back now?

 

Then again, the US charts are completely messed up with their ridiculous rules anyway so another one would hardly hurt.

 

(For the record, as a general rule, I disapprove of any 'a song gets disqualified if [x]' situation with the exception of excluding free downloads)

I think they did get rid of it. I'm not sure whether they reinstated it or not. But it was definitely introduced initially with Dark Side in mind.

I do sometimes think some sort of recurrent rule would be useful. It would at least help weed out songs that just keep cropping up because someone performs them on x factor.

I do sometimes think some sort of recurrent rule would be useful. It would at least help weed out songs that just keep cropping up because someone performs them on x factor.

 

 

But why would you want to "weed them out" anyway? If they're selling, that should be recognised.

I don't see why you couldn't have a side-by-side chart of "recent releases" that only counts songs that came out in the last X weeks, but certainly I don't think it should replace THE Chart, because that is the chart of what is currently popular, and that should always track the real public mood.

I don't see why you couldn't have a side-by-side chart of "recent releases" that only counts songs that came out in the last X weeks, but certainly I don't think it should replace THE Chart, because that is the chart of what is currently popular, and that should always track the real public mood.

 

Well there is a catalogue chart, but I presume the criteria for inclusion is being over a year old, this is last week's...

 

1 1 Damien Rice Cannonball

2 3 Mazzy Star Into Dust

3 N Vanessa Carlton A Thousand Miles

4 4 Adele Make You Feel My Love

5 N Jennifer Hudson Love You I Do

6 10 Nickelback Photograph

7 19 Dr Dre feat. Snoop Dogg The Next Episode

8 N K-Ci & Jojo All My Life

9 8 Dolly Parton Jolene

10 13 Whitesnake Here I Go Again

11 6 Semisonic Closing Time

12 N Earth, Wind And Fire September

13 14 Snow Patrol Chasing Cars

14 N Beyonce Listen

15 N Leona Lewis Run

16 11 Will Young Leave Right Now

17 N A-ha Take On Me

18 N The Asteroid Galaxy Tour The Golden Age

19 N Goo Goo Dolls Iris

20 N New Order Blue Monday

 

Usual suspects really, apart from The Asteroid Galaxy Tour :mellow:

Look back at 2006 and realise why this would be wrong.

Absolutely not! If a song is selling enough to chart, then it should, regardless of how old it is.

 

It took decades to finally get a chart where every sale counts, so why on earth would we want to turn back the clock?

 

I don't see why you couldn't have a side-by-side chart of "recent releases" that only counts songs that came out in the last X weeks, but certainly I don't think it should replace THE Chart, because that is the chart of what is currently popular, and that should always track the real public mood.

 

Like the heatseekers in the US?

If every song was deleted from the chart after 20 consecutive weeks, I would never listen/follow the charts or post on music forums ever again.

Well there is a catalogue chart, but I presume the criteria for inclusion is being over a year old, this is last week's...

 

18 N The Asteroid Galaxy Tour The Golden Age

 

Usual suspects really, apart from The Asteroid Galaxy Tour :mellow:

 

Why the mellow face? :D

 

Below is the reason why 'The Golden Age' is selling. It's currently top 10 in Austria because of this.

 

A big NO. Either you want a chart that shows the real sales and popularity of songs or with an exclusion rule you will have a chart that looks nice with full of new releases but doesn't show the real sales info and the real popularity of all the available songs. It would be a mess.

Also Nicola Roberts would have charted at #38 with Lucky Day last week rather than #40.

 

I LOL'ed

 

In the US there's the bubbling under chart for songs which haven't yet reached Hot 100. That'd be a nice addition to the UK charts

 

So basically a chart for NEW songs that miss the Top 75/100.

 

BTW in the US Hot 100 (which is a hit chart may I add) if the song is over 20 weeks old and still in Top 50 it's able to chart so the limit is not 20 weeks there unless a song drops out of Top 50. So a song over 40 weeks old can well be in Top 30 as 'If I Die Young' by The Band Perry is this week.

Edited October 4, 201113 yr by SKOB

So the top 200 then...