I just presume everyone is from the UK here! :P

 

No problem! Plus UK charts are more interesting than ours. And I'm fond of US charts too.

It's actually scary how ten-fifteen years ago we were all looking at the concept of the mp3 download as this cutting edge and modern thing, and yet with streaming it's already become the old kid on the block. Indeed it's been extremely easy to hear almost any song you want since Youtube caught on popularity in 2006 - even a year earlier I mostly found my songs trawling through Google searches and fileshares.

 

At the risk of repeating what everyone probably said a decade ago, this is going to be a fascinating few years for the music industry. People said mp3s were killing music at the turn of the last decade, but that still involved low-quality files and extremely long downloading time for the slow internet connections of the day. Now everyone has internet access on their phones with widespread 4G usage a few years around the corner. By the year 2020 will anyone see the need on actually buying a song, when they'll just load up Spotify on their 4G iPhone 8S and be able to listen to the entire top 40 for free with the press of a button?

 

What the OCC don't want to do is make a similar mistake to how downloading was first quietly ignored for years, then when it was finally integrated into the chart it came with a load of ridiculous rules in order to try and save physical sales before things were finally sorted in 2007. If they rush into it and add streaming sales tomorrow, expect someone to instantly rig the chart by recording the sound of someone bashing their head on a brick wall for three minutes and streaming it on loop all week. If they wait too long, sales will plummet to dead proportions like they did a decade ago. It's really something to think about as to how the hell they're going to incorporate it if they want the chart to remain relevant in the new decade.

Edited January 14, 201411 yr by BillyH

There should still be sales chart. But singles chart should include streaming.

 

However, I'd rather see streaming added on albums chart because that's what most people I know do - they have spotify that they can listen to albums.

 

Nobody downloads albums here.

 

ISTM quantifying streaming is a lot easier for singles than for albums though. Easy to tally streams of individual tracks, but far fewer people will listen to a whole album from beginning to end in one session. So if they listen to half an album, do you count that as one half of a 'sale'?

 

At the risk of repeating what everyone probably said a decade ago, this is going to be a fascinating few years for the music industry. People said mp3s were killing music at the turn of the last decade

 

And 30 years ago it was home taping... :)

 

Now everyone has internet access on their phones

I don't. I use a mobile too little to justify a contract deal, and smart phones are expensive if you intend to PAYG.

 

By the year 2020 will anyone see the need on actually buying a song, when they'll just load up Spotify on their 4G iPhone 8S and be able to listen to the entire top 40 for free with the press of a button?

 

I have no intention of ever switching to streaming - I very much prefer actually having possession of the music I listen to!

 

What the OCC don't want to do is make a similar mistake to how downloading was first quietly ignored for years, then when it was finally integrated into the chart it came with a load of ridiculous rules in order to try and save physical sales before things were finally sorted in 2007. If they rush into it and add streaming sales tomorrow, expect someone to instantly rig the chart by recording the sound of someone bashing their head on a brick wall for three minutes and streaming it on loop all week.

 

If there was a choice between that and 'wand erection', I know which I'd prefer though! :lol:

 

Bump.

 

Issues with incorporating streaming into the main charts...

 

An obvious one will be that songs will be worth different amounts depending on how much someone uses a streaming site.

 

e.g. 2 people use Spotify at the same subscription level : one streams 100 songs a month, the other 500 songs. Surely that would mean that songs streamed by the 2nd person should only count 1/5th as much, as their sub is being split between 5 times as many songs?

 

Another point that just occurred to me : just as with illegal downloads, you might stream a song just to see how it sounds, without any real intention of actually buying it - yet it would then count towards the chart, even if it turns out you hated it. :(

But if a song is bad and nobody cares about it, it won't do well on charts anyway.

 

Many people have been watching Miley Cyrus' music videos by curiosity but her songs have been successful in other terms too.

 

The interest must be there anyway.

It's complicated, they must have rules in place for the streaming charts.

But if a song is bad and nobody cares about it, it won't do well on charts anyway.

 

Many people have been watching Miley Cyrus' music videos by curiosity but her songs have been successful in other terms too.

 

The interest must be there anyway.

How about Rebecca Black with "Friday"? It went viral because everyone had to spread the word of how 'bad' it was. It didn't sell much because people didn't like it (or didn't want to spend money on it), but it was so ubiquitous that everyone had to give it a try, which gave it huge streaming numbers. Now that was on YouTube, as Spotify hadn't taken off at the time, but if it happened now? Spotify is free streaming just like YT, so I'd imagine many would try it on there, and would be able to listen as much as they like amongst their normal music listening.

 

I believe there are several examples of this on the Billboard Hot 100 since they incorporated YT streaming, including Rebecca Black's "Saturday" which spent a week at #55.

How about Rebecca Black with "Friday"?

 

I think Friday could have got #1 on the Hot 100 with the current chart rules. :lol: