The story is now on the BBC website :( The BBC story makes clear that there is no firm date yet but I suspect it may not be long

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26238575

Hate the thought of this, but knew it was inevitable. Streaming can not only stagnate the chart but lead to it being manipulated. Like what happened with Dope by Gaga having a number 8 peak in the US because they counted the views of it from the 'Youtube awards' and from an advert that played on youtube with the song that was 31 seconds when they only count anything over 30 secs.

 

 

I hope you tube isn't counted, it makes matters much more complicated, then you could see songs in the charts not even available to buy

Download sales are still hugely popular guys. This isn't going to be THE END OF THE WORLD FOR THE CHARTS

I don't know how its going to be implemented, I can see the chart getting slower with a couple of old tracks littering the chart for ages.

I don't know how its going to be implemented, I can see the chart getting slower with a couple of old tracks littering the chart for ages.

 

So we'll notice no difference, then? :lol:

If the streaming is introduced so will airplay in time, which in some ways is slightly worrying as if you take radio 1 for example with their ageist view only young artists will benefit from it. All that aside, i do think streaming etc is good, the access to music is so wide now, and incorporating all avenues into the chart makes the chart more reflective of whats really happening.

If the streaming is introduced so will airplay in time

 

I don't think so, as at least streaming will be based on paid-for music, whereas airplay is largely down to how big a bribe record companies slip radio station bosses... :whistle:

 

Drunk In Love is #6 on that Streaming Chart *.*

I hate this idea simply because it's impossible to determine how many "streams" constitutes a "sale"... There's already a separate streaming chart, why do we need it to be included? Who cares if sales go down, the point of the singles chart is to tell people which are the most bought songs of the week and that's the way it's always been - if the streaming chart becomes more popular than the singles chart then so be it, but I don't think they should be combined. As well as the fact that it will be so much easier to abuse, once you've paid your subscription you can just spam the same song over and over again to get loads of sales. When I buy a song I will usually listen to it hundreds of times, and yet that only counted as one sale. It hardly seems fair however you judge it.

 

But, my complaining is hardly going to change their decision... *sighs* :(

Why would AIRPLAY be implemented if it hasn't been now?

 

The only chart that airplay is implemented is a hit chart such as Hot 100 and paid streaming doesn't make singles chart less singles chart as it was.

Oh joy. The charts are going to be even more awful now, yay.

I'm sure when it gets implemented they will think of ways to make sure people don't abuse the system and such, like setting the limit of listens per day that will count towards the chart. And even if they don't do anything, it'd still not matter anyway because most people have no time to do shit like that.

I posted this also on haven, A Big Top 40 mark 2, they should leave it alone, we already have 1 chart that has everything including the Bathroom Sink in it and that is Presented by a Former JLS Member.

 

 

 

It Kept Spamming me when I tried to put in the sink in the room that you Cook in, so Bathroom had to do.

Edited February 18, 201411 yr by smiffj

Inevitable change. I remember the reaction to downloads been counted - rah rah rah. You'd assume they would count paid for streaming, although what method they use is going to be interesting. This has to happen to keep up with the current market. Naturally the weighting to being with would only be something minor I'd guess (<10%).

There was an indepth article in Music Week last week about it, it's essentially 2 sides of the music industry disagreeing over streaming data, but Spotify becoming ever-more powerful.

 

Personally, I'm against it on the grounds that it's NOT, as in absolutely 100% NOT a sale. The UK music charts have always been about SALES. The US charts have always been useless from that point of view because they have been systematically manipulated by the powerful media since day 1.

 

If listens to a record count, then may as well just incorporate radio airplay, or assume everytime someone buys a track that they actually listen to it more than once and incorporate that data too. It's mad, and Youtube data should also be incorporated if going down that route, just so Spotify don't dominate to an unhealthy degree and dictate (as theyve been campaigning in Music Week already).

 

As many have already have pointed out, the charts will slow further, become duller, and people will get even less interested in them. A reasonable, varied turnover of new music is essential to keep the charts fresh, and they've been a bit stagnant for some time already...

 

 

Inevitable change. I remember the reaction to downloads been counted - rah rah rah. You'd assume they would count paid for streaming, although what method they use is going to be interesting. This has to happen to keep up with the current market. Naturally the weighting to being with would only be something minor I'd guess (

The inclusion of downloads was a logical move - after all, it's still a sale even if there is no physical product. Even at the time I thought the OCC were slow to include downloads and that now seems to be the consensus view. Streaming, however, is a totally different matter. Why should a sale count once and once only - no matter how many times the song is played over however long a period - while streaming of a song by one person can contribute to the chart every week for months?

Inevitable change. I remember the reaction to downloads been counted - rah rah rah. You'd assume they would count paid for streaming, although what method they use is going to be interesting. This has to happen to keep up with the current market. Naturally the weighting to being with would only be something minor I'd guess (<10%).

 

Exactly, most of the complaints against including streaming are exactly the same type of arguments that were made against downloads being included.

 

The only downside is it means we won't be able to compare with past sales anymore (though only chart geeks will care about that, let's be honest). Kudos to the OCC for actually being ahead of the curve this time, rather than doing what they did in the 00s by stubbornly refusing for ages to start including downloads, which led to the chart's relevance being completely destroyed.

I think:

1. We might say goodbye to held-back releases since now (espeically if they include Youtube views)

2. And indeed the charts will be even more stale. A new entry straight in the top-40 will be quite a rare occurance

3. MAYBE there should be a rule that the streaming data should only be gathered from authorised users, and no more than 2 or 3 streams can be counted for the track from the same user per year or something.

 

Why the streaming charts are so slow? Because you don't buy a song in one week - but stream the same song for weeks instead. And it all slows down.

The inclusion of downloads was a logical move - after all, it's still a sale even if there is no physical product. Even at the time I thought the OCC were slow to include downloads and that now seems to be the consensus view. Streaming, however, is a totally different matter. Why should a sale count once and once only - no matter how many times the song is played over however long a period - while streaming of a song by one person can contribute to the chart every week for months?

 

It was a logical move, and I agree the OCC were slow. But the reaction to including downloads on here by the majority was ridiculous. It was a long time ago (I think 2006) but the reaction to both including promoting a download only chart, and then when downloading was finally included together with the singles chart was similar to this. Entirely negative - slow charts, songs sticking around for ages etc. Sure it doesn't help matters, but songs that are truly popular and will be known by generations to come surely deserve to have long chart runs. The best songs will always make their way in to the chart.

 

Nobody knows just how the streaming chart is going to be included, it might only be minimal weighting. Streaming is a major platform for the future, and I think in order to protect the charts in the future, it needs to be included.

Im in agreement with this move and read the David Joseph article in MW last week - it was a great insight into the arguement within the industry - which i alluded too in a post in the sales thread. David Joseph CEO of Universal is all for streaming to make the charts more relevant to 2014 and he is also for on air releases which most of the other labels oppose.

 

I agree but id like to see the detail about it because why for instance do new songs quickly climb the streaming chart a week after the buyers chart? Surely songs are available to stream sooner?