The ideal chart turnover is about 20%, that is to say in a Top 40, you should have at least 8 new entries a week and in a Top 10, 2 new songs per week. We have been far below that for ages now and it isn't streaming or downloads that is to blame - it is bloody commercial radio and it's refusal to playlist anything new or exciting.

 

I doubt our chart would become as slow as America's which is embarrassingly slow - they barely get 50 Top 10 hits a year. Zzzz.

I think 20% is too high, 10-12% would seem right for me.

The ideal chart turnover is about 20%, that is to say in a Top 40, you should have at least 8 new entries a week and in a Top 10, 2 new songs per week. We have been far below that for ages now and it isn't streaming or downloads that is to blame - it is bloody commercial radio and it's refusal to playlist anything new or exciting.

 

I doubt our chart would become as slow as America's which is embarrassingly slow - they barely get 50 Top 10 hits a year. Zzzz.

 

America's is slower because they include airplay too (which like streaming, is an "infinite" thing). But streaming definitely slowed it down even more (and makes it almost impossible for the likes of Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, etc. to debut at #1 like they used to be able to).

 

Looking at the Hot 100 this week, their biggest faller this week was Home by Phillip Phillips, which fell 6 places (from #9 to #15). That song, however, first entered the top 10 over 6 months ago iirc, and has peaked at #6. This sort of stuff in the UK charts would get me really annoyed tbh. Yeah, it's fascinating now when one song does that sort of thing, but when it becomes commonplace everybody will hate it I think.

 

And they had 4 new entries in the top 40 this week. All climbers obviously. They highest being Bruno Mars at #22, the other new entries being at #37, #39 and #40.

Edited February 10, 201312 yr by Eric_Blob

They're both completely different ways of consuming music, if you're going to include streaming then you might as well include Youtube views, music video downloads, radio/TV airplay, advert/trailer plays etc. A track can get to #1 and only be listened to by each person once, a track could make #10 but each person listen to it 100 times! A singles chart should be based on sales only imo, by all means publish a streaming chart - but keep them seperate!

 

(Apologies for my mindless rambling, I'm tired!)

There are far too many ways of hyping streaming. What's to stop someone drawing up a playlist of their favourite songs and playing them on shuffle for hours on end even when they're not actually listening?

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'm sorry but that is total bullshit. I have sometimes streamed music for whole afternoons and evenings and it has completely reignited the value and the importance of music to me. Those who complain about streaming have clearly not experienced the brilliant experience that you can get from it.

 

From my point of view, streaming should be included in the chart. The chart would be a lot slower, but I think that could be good for the chart as well. You never really get the impression of big hits that hung around the chart for ages these days and streaming in the chart would lead to more bigger hits in terms of how many people listen to them. Let's also not forget that streaming would be a more representative way of what people are listening to, which can only be a good thing!

I had to vote no, after reading all the drawbacks mentioned here.

 

Foremost is the notion that, for example, One Direction fans launch a Facebook campaign of concentrated streaming for a week, in order to get a song only generating modest sales to #1! :(

I'm sorry but that is total bullshit. I have sometimes streamed music for whole afternoons and evenings and it has completely reignited the value and the importance of music to me. Those who complain about streaming have clearly not experienced the brilliant experience that you can get from it.

 

From my point of view, streaming should be included in the chart. The chart would be a lot slower, but I think that could be good for the chart as well. You never really get the impression of big hits that hung around the chart for ages these days and streaming in the chart would lead to more bigger hits in terms of how many people listen to them. Let's also not forget that streaming would be a more representative way of what people are listening to, which can only be a good thing!

 

Illegal downloaders convince themselves of them same thing, then complain at the price of concert tickets....

Edited February 11, 201312 yr by steve201

The words "recurrent rule" as Eric mentioned are surely enough to scare anyone away from the idea of including streaming - deleting songs if they've been around for too long would be a completely retrograde step.

 

I'm not even that fussed about the incredibly slow charts that would result, it's more that it's just a half-arsed stab at making the charts more representative and it's not what's needed.

I'm sorry but that is total bullshit. I have sometimes streamed music for whole afternoons and evenings and it has completely reignited the value and the importance of music to me. Those who complain about streaming have clearly not experienced the brilliant experience that you can get from it.

 

From my point of view, streaming should be included in the chart. The chart would be a lot slower, but I think that could be good for the chart as well. You never really get the impression of big hits that hung around the chart for ages these days and streaming in the chart would lead to more bigger hits in terms of how many people listen to them. Let's also not forget that streaming would be a more representative way of what people are listening to, which can only be a good thing!

 

There's a chance I'm misunderstanding you here but songs already stick around longer than they used too. I remember the days when a massive no.1 would stick around 18-20 weeks tops-these days songs that missed the top ten stay in the top 40 this long.

 

I've had Spotify since 2009 and I never really use it. Maybe twice, three times a year.

I don't like the idea at all.

The only thing I can see in its favour, is that it may encourage more alternative bands that aren't usually huge single sales to sell more consistently, but that's the only positive for me.

 

I don't think it's a problem. Sales are massive at the moment. Unless, we have a situation like the middle of the 2000s where downloads start to become obsolete in favour of streaming, I'd say no.

Yes in my opinion tracks do stick around for slightly too long as it is currently, anything that extends that will make the charts far too dull

And don't forget OCC already publishes a Streaming Chart on its own.

 

http://www.officialcharts.com/official-streaming-chart/

I voted yes, but then I saw the actual chart...oops :lol: I think, as Eric mentioned, they should compile a seperate chart using streaming and singles data and see how it measures up. But at the same time, its becoming rather inevitable they'll be added eventually, its easier for people these days to stream a song and save it etc. than pay for it. I don't like the prospect of a slow chart, but it would become more reflective of popularity, I know that's not what the charts are supposed to be about and all but I don't think anyone likes these non number 1s popping up, so I think in terms of moving forward, I would be for it.

As far as I'm concerned, any concept of what effect it will have on the songs in the chart and how long they stick around for is irrelevant. The original idea of the chart (in the UK, at least) was to say which songs sold the most copies in that week - any other measure of popularity shouldn't be included in my opinion, because that was the whole concept of the chart. Songs get loads of views on YouTube but we don't include that in the chart. Streaming's not really buying the track, you pay a subscription to be able to listen to whatever you want, which is not the same as buying a particular song. It's true that if streaming takes over the singles market then the current singles chart will have extremely low sales, but that doesn't matter - just because there are low sales, doesn't mean the original point of the chart has been changed. There is a streaming chart separate to the singles chart, and whether or not that becomes the chart that's more relevant to what people are listening to in the future, in my opinion they should never be combined. Also, if they are combined, I think any rule which involves manipulating the chart so that a song that's been in there for ages leaves more quickly, will completely devalue the whole thing. If a song is popular enough to be in the chart, it shouldn't be removed just because people will get bored of it, it would just make a mockery of the whole system.

More no votes than yes... :(

 

I don't think streaming and sales need to be combined RIGHT NOW - but in the future people would prefer to pay £5 or £10 a month to play as many songs as they like. If the OCC refuse to combine sales and streaming Radio 1 could possibly be playing the Top 40 most streamed songs of the week on a Sunday afternoon in 5 years time as it will reflect the general public's music taste more than a sales chart where the #1 is selling 10k per week.

I think the OCC will eventually have no choice to include the data - As more and more people stream and sales diminish we will reach a point like we did when CD singles were phased out and we had tracks selling 7k to reach the Top 3, It won't happen for years yet but it will happen eventually

^Sadly a lot of people are reluctant for change to happen. I remember people being against the rule change on 1 Jan 2007 to allow downloads in that weren't tied to a physical release.

 

Fortunately sales are very buoyant and continue to rise year-on-year in the singles market - however, that may not last forever and it is perfectly conceivable that 10 years down the line sales could fall to record lows as streaming from Spotify and other providers takes over as the most popular way of consuming music.

 

I get that including streaming wouldn't make it a sales chart anymore, but if in 10 years time that sales chart #1 is some fanbase buy that sold about 5K (as we have seen on the physical chart in 2008/2009) then it would be a lot more relevant to the general public/RAdio 1.. people I'm afraid are going to have to accept that a sales chart won't be around forever.

Edited February 11, 201312 yr by Doctor Blind

A lot of people in this thread remind me of when downloads were implemented into the chart. When streaming becomes the most popular way to access music, that is when it should be included in the chart.

 

I predict that streaming will be included in the chart from 2015-2017.

As far as I'm concerned, any concept of what effect it will have on the songs in the chart and how long they stick around for is irrelevant. The original idea of the chart (in the UK, at least) was to say which songs sold the most copies in that week - any other measure of popularity shouldn't be included in my opinion, because that was the whole concept of the chart. Songs get loads of views on YouTube but we don't include that in the chart. Streaming's not really buying the track, you pay a subscription to be able to listen to whatever you want, which is not the same as buying a particular song. It's true that if streaming takes over the singles market then the current singles chart will have extremely low sales, but that doesn't matter - just because there are low sales, doesn't mean the original point of the chart has been changed. There is a streaming chart separate to the singles chart, and whether or not that becomes the chart that's more relevant to what people are listening to in the future, in my opinion they should never be combined. Also, if they are combined, I think any rule which involves manipulating the chart so that a song that's been in there for ages leaves more quickly, will completely devalue the whole thing. If a song is popular enough to be in the chart, it shouldn't be removed just because people will get bored of it, it would just make a mockery of the whole system.

Pretty much exactly this. The comparison between now and when downloads became a force is ridiculous, mp3 players had existed for years by that point and it was fairly commonly accepted that downloads were going to become the dominant way of consuming music sooner rather than later. It may come back to bite me but I can't see streaming taking over in the same way, if the illegal download market hasn't killed the charts then I don't see how this will lead to weak sales for years and years to come.

 

Another thing contradicting the point about slow charts is of course the fact that the chart has sped up in recent years as the industry adapted better to downloads, I can see the same happening with streaming so that's not really the issue.