February 19, 201411 yr I'm just concerned if this will make the chart move slower. You buy a track one week, you aren't counted again the next week. But you then listen to that track for weeks/months. I'd have to see how they decide to measure it. but if a song has so much lasting appeal that you can listen to it for many months without getting tired of it then why shouldn't that be reflected in the chart? The changes will massively help the chart runs of songs that are genuinely popular, which will make the charts more relevant. If the charts move slower as a result then so be it. It would stop any non-#1s like 'Look Right Through' and 'Skyscraper', to name a few recent examples, from getting there, which is a good thing, as whatever your opinion on those songs are, they shouldn't have been #1s. If Mariah gets Christmas number One will that be 20 years after release by the way? Would that be some sort of record? It would get the record for longest time between getting released and being a Christmas #1, for a Christmas song. It wouldn't beat Jackie Wilson's 'Reet Petite' for the all-time record, as that song was originally released in 1957, and it went to Christmas #1 in 1986.
February 19, 201411 yr I don't think Look Right Through was a "non #1" at all. It was hugely popular.
February 19, 201411 yr I don't think Look Right Through was a "non #1" at all. It was hugely popular. Maybe 'Under Control' would've been a better example. But from a popularity perspective, the #1 that week should've been Eminem's 'The Monster'. Yes, 'Look Right Through' may have been hugely popular, but 'The Monster' was even more popular so should've been #1. For the record I much much prefer 'Look Right Through' so I am very grateful that it went to #1, but it definitely wasn't more popular than 'The Monster'.
February 19, 201411 yr Look Right Through and Skyscraper were both justified as being #1s I think, as the former did have decent longevity and Sam had good first week sales (if we ignore the fact that they were weak for an X Factor winner, they'd be good sales for any other artist so I'd say it's fine). I'm not even massive on either song either. Streaming preventing the most *bought* song of the week from getting to #1 wouldn't be right for the chart IMO as it's always been 100% sales. If The Monster was genuinely more popular the week of Look Right Through, why weren't more people buying it?
February 19, 201411 yr Look Right Through and Skyscraper were both justified as being #1s I think, as the former did have decent longevity and Sam had good first week sales (if we ignore the fact that they were weak for an X Factor winner, they'd be good sales for any other artist so I'd say it's fine). I'm not even massive on either song either. Streaming preventing the most *bought* song of the week from getting to #1 wouldn't be right for the chart IMO as it's always been 100% sales. If The Monster was genuinely more popular the week of Look Right Through, why weren't more people buying it? Because not everyone pays for music. I personally don't see why I would waste money buying a track when I could listen to it for free whenever I wanted, completely legally. But I'm a massive music fan and follower and as it stands my listening habits are not counted towards the charts
February 19, 201411 yr Look Right Through and Skyscraper were both justified as being #1s I think, as the former did have decent longevity and Sam had good first week sales (if we ignore the fact that they were weak for an X Factor winner, they'd be good sales for any other artist so I'd say it's fine). I'm not even massive on either song either. Streaming preventing the most *bought* song of the week from getting to #1 wouldn't be right for the chart IMO as it's always been 100% sales. If The Monster was genuinely more popular the week of Look Right Through, why weren't more people buying it? Because LRT had been held back for ages, so its first week sales were always going to be big. Plus the fact that a lot of Eminem fans would've already bought 'The Monster', and some would be streaming it. I really do think adding streaming is a good idea, yes the chart has always been 100% sales, that doesn't mean they can't change. I imagine they'll still compile a sales-only chart, so we can still see who's selling the most on a particular week.
February 19, 201411 yr Neil "Dr" Fox was on Sky News on the Boulton & Co show talking about this whole subject just before 2pm this afternoon.
February 19, 201411 yr Because LRT had been held back for ages, so its first week sales were always going to be big. Plus the fact that a lot of Eminem fans would've already bought 'The Monster', and some would be streaming it. I really do think adding streaming is a good idea, yes the chart has always been 100% sales, that doesn't mean they can't change. I imagine they'll still compile a sales-only chart, so we can still see who's selling the most on a particular week. I agree its why Lily Allen/Pharrell(with Happy)/One Republic were no1 with gaps in between because held back songs kept knocking her off for a week but throughout the month before xmas she was the most consistent seller and most genuinely popular hit of the time! Edited February 19, 201411 yr by steve201
February 19, 201411 yr Neil "Dr" Fox was on Sky News on the Boulton & Co show talking about this whole subject just before 2pm this afternoon. What did he say?
February 19, 201411 yr What did he say? Talking quite positively about it. He did indicate the acts receive revenue with the streams.
February 19, 201411 yr I reckon if they count streaming, then the singers themselves could promote their music even more via social media, it's probably easier for them to persuade people to stream a song then buy one
February 19, 201411 yr Because not everyone pays for music. I personally don't see why I would waste money buying a track when I could listen to it for free whenever I wanted, completely legally. But I'm a massive music fan and follower and as it stands my listening habits are not counted towards the charts Nobody's "listening" habits are, the chart lists people's "purchasing" habits
February 20, 201411 yr To be fair, like Scott I don't pay for music but listen legally, with the exception of SOME albums which I'll buy, like Coldplay, Adele, Rihanna and Florence and the Machine were the most recent I bought and that was like 2 years ago. SO in a sense the streaming addition would include me in the charts buuut I still think a sales chart should stay all about sales. Have a streaming/ sales chart SEPARATE, like the Pepsi Chart, and that'd be fine. Edited February 20, 201411 yr by Michael!
February 20, 201411 yr Because not everyone pays for music. I personally don't see why I would waste money buying a track when I could listen to it for free whenever I wanted, completely legally. As an 'oldie', that concept doesn't come easily to me - I don't have a smart phone or a tablet, and I didn't even get a mobile until 2006 (I still use that same one). :) I still prefer to own (*) the music I listen to - preferably on a physical format. To me, streaming feels like borrowing a library book - i.e. just a loan, rather than really possessing it. (*) Yes, I know copyright laws wouldn't agree that I actually *own* it, but you know what I mean...
February 20, 201411 yr Of course, vidcapper. As a music follower over the past few decades, I'm sure you have grown fond of accessing music in this way and have some fond memories of doing so. In the same way as even older oldies hold memories of vinyl close to their hearts. They may claim that it's just "not the same" to hear an improved quality of the song because it takes away from the experience but it can't be disagreed with that CDs offer better quality. So in a similar way, whilst theres not an improvement on quality in streaming to CDs/downloads, streaming has made it more convenient to listen to songs and is considerably cheaper (if not totally free). This means that you can enjoy listening to many more songs. It seems that you have chosen not to embrace the New technology that is available for whatever reason (that's fine, it's your choice obviously) but a listening experience to me is just as enjoyable no matter what the method of listening to a song is, so long as it is decent quality.
February 21, 201411 yr I reckon if they count streaming, then the singers themselves could promote their music even more via social media, it's probably easier for them to persuade people to stream a song then buy one this is true, even more so considering that to stream a song could cost you virtually nothing at all. How much does streaming cost? £9.99 to listen to as much as you want or something? Edited February 21, 201411 yr by fiesta
February 21, 201411 yr this is true, even more so considering that to stream a song could cost you virtually nothing at all. How much does streaming cost? £9.99 to listen to as much as you want or something? It depends what type of membership you have: This is taken from wikipedia: As of 2014, the three Spotify account types are: Name- Price - Free of Ads - Listening time - Premium features Spotify Free - Free - No - Unlimited - No Spotify Unlimited - 4.99 USD, 6.99 AUD, 7.49 NZD, 4.99 GBP, 49 MXN, 18 ARS, 4.99 TRY, 49 NOK, 49 SEK, 49 DKK, 6.45 CHF, 9.99 PLN, 4.99 EUR (3.49 EUR in some countries: Baltic states, Greece, Portugal) per month. No longer accepting new subscriptions for this account type - Yes - Unlimited - No Spotify Premium - 9.99 USD, 11.99 AUD, 12.99 NZD, 9.99 GBP, 9.9 SGD, 48 HKD, 149 NTD, 14.9 MYR, 99 MXN, 36 ARS, 9.99 TRY, 99 NOK, 99 SEK, 99 DKK, 12.95 CHF, 19.99 PLN, 9.99 EUR (6.99 EUR in some countries: Baltic states, Greece, Portugal, 4.99 EUR in Bulgaria) per month - Yes - Unlimited - Yes* *^ Offline mode, mobile device support, enhanced sound quality, exclusive content.
February 21, 201411 yr this is true, even more so considering that to stream a song could cost you virtually nothing at all. How much does streaming cost? £9.99 to listen to as much as you want or something? That's not true for a none free service. This is the cost per play of each track. Fee for one month. We will use your price of £9.99. Weekly cost £2.4975 Less total time you cannot listen to stream service for the month, a sleep, eating, work, school etc. Less the time each track you listen to is playing. Less the time spent searching for music to play. Equals cost of each track you play. Footnote: cost of each track will rise up each time you play it, since it will eat into the time you have to play tracks. The longer you can spend on the streaming site the cheaper the track costs. If you don't often use the streaming site, costs will be greater than what you might spend on downloads. As download sales fall due to people streaming records, the costs of the fee will rise up as record companies try to recover costs.
February 21, 201411 yr so streaming, you can hear whatever the company chooses to put on their database or what artists and record companies allow (NOT everything ever recorded) as long as you keep renting the service. Stop paying you've lost a large chunk of your listening pleasure. So, listening to a record out of curiosity on spotify (and possibly hating it or being indifferent) counts toward the chart, but buying it and playing it a million times cos you love it, or paying 50p/£1 in a pub to listen to it doesn't. That's not necessarily a true reflection of popularity in my book, anymore than records played by radio stations are. Or Youtube hits. Play it once, never bother playing it again anyone? I could understand the argument if sales were critical, but they are very very healthy. So it's down to powerful media interests pushing for it. Ministry of Sound don't do streaming, and I would rather buy a track off them than rent one. B-)
Create an account or sign in to comment