Should they be added to the current system, should make an interesting discussion

I think they will have no choice but to add them eventually - More and more people are switching from downloading to streaming and eventually i can see sales declining for individual paid for tracks, I used to spend around £30 a week on iTunes i now spend £5 a month to stream music.

 

I can't see them adding the data for a while yet but it will happen eventually.

No, never ever ever.

Should they be added to the current system, should make an interesting discussion

 

But on what basis, that's the issue? How many streams would equate to one real sale?

If a significant number are now paying for streaming a song instead of a download, it should be included. I imagine it wouldn't make a significant impact on the chart for a while though!

Don't like the idea of this one!

If it becomes the most popular method of consuming music (which it looks like it increasingly will) then I have no problem with it being incorporated.

 

Another step to getting rid of horrible #1 debuts. :D

Don't like the idea of this one!

 

Neither do I, don't know how they would track it, also it would slow down the chart drastically.

 

Another step to getting rid of horrible #1 debuts. :D

And non-number ones.

 

If they did want to combine sales with streaming, they should make it a separate chart, not the official singles chart.

Yes, as it makes the chart more representative of what people are listening to and I stream. Only downside is that the chart will be a LOT slower :(

No because it isn't as easy as it sounds. Where would they draw the line with the amount of times the same person streams the same song in one week? I may as well email the OCC telling them how many times I've played a song each week. They simply cannot add streaming to a SALES chart. It wouldn't reflect true popularity of songs unless there was a fair way to count the plays. Streaming may become more popular but keep the charts seperate-it's hardly like when downloads emerged.

it's a hyper's paradise, unless they limit it to one stream per account.

 

If you can set up one account and play the same song over and over again and count all the plays, you'll get bots doing it 24 hours a day.

 

Anyway, why should a play on a streamiing site be more chart-worthy than me playing a track off the latest Now CD for example?

Edited February 10, 201312 yr by fchd

It's clear that as time goes by the ability to provide a representative sales chart Is diminishing because people don't valueusic they just consume it and see it as throwaway

I wouldn't really know how streaming sales would work :lol:

 

I'd rather sales just represented downloads and physicals and didn't incorporate streaming tbh.

Edited February 10, 201312 yr by Sapeod

I don't feel comfortable with it, downloads joining physical sales was like-for-like really in that you were buying a specific product. Eric summed it up when he said that the singles chart is representative of what people are buying, it's not supposed to be a perfect indicator of what's popular and it's foolish to include streaming in an attempt to do that.

Yes, as it makes the chart more representative of what people are listening to and I stream. Only downside is that the chart will be a LOT slower :(

 

 

But the UK chart is not representative of what people are listening to - and never has been. It's representative of what individual tracks people are willing to pay for.

All the points I was going to make have already been posted. For sure the charts would be incredibly slow - we'd have the same top 10 singles for about 3 weeks (a bit like the UK charts in early 2008, and the US charts towards the end of 2012). Look at Sweden/Norway/Finland's charts - all strictly stream sales and are three of the slowest charts in the world right now.

 

I do agree that if it combats dreadful one week wonders going 01-06-09-32-OUT then that's a good thing. However, there's nothing wrong with a track debuting at #1 but preferably stay there to prove its worthy of being a chart topper in the first place. That doesn't mean endless 'Umbrella'-esque #1 hits either. 2003 had a decent run of #1 hits in terms of how long they stayed at the top for - most of them stuck at the top for 3/4 weeks which is good enough than an endless chain of one weekers.

 

That said, I'd much prefer a sales based only chart just with a bit more stability at the top end.

I think the OCC should just make a new chart of sales and streaming combined. And when it starts getting to the point where the sales chart is looking to become insignificant, then Radio 1 can switch over to broadcasting the sales/streaming combined chart (although obviously the sales-only chart will always remain THE official one).

 

If we ever do include streaming in the chart, I think we'll need to have a recurrent rule similar to the Hot 100, where songs go recurrent after being in the chart for a certain number of weeks (e.g. 20 weeks), to let new songs get in.

 

Somebody That I Used to Know is still #40 in the Spotify chart. :drama:

 

Yes, streaming would make it more difficult for songs to debut high for obvious reasons. It would've stopped songs like Promises, Dirtee Disco and Turn Up the Music making #1 probably, but on the other hand, Fall Out Boy and Disclosure probably wouldn't have made the top 10 this week.

Edited February 10, 201312 yr by Eric_Blob

A zillion times no. Streaming makes national charts completely stagnant (look at Sweden, Finland, Norway, America's charts for example).

A zillion times no. Streaming makes national charts completely stagnant (look at Sweden, Finland, Norway, America's charts for example).

 

Yeah, this is my main fear about it. A recurrent rule will NEED to be in place imo. You would never be able to bring back Top of the Pops if we had streaming in the chart for example, there'd not be enough happening in the chart.