How so?

 

Because streaming a few songs from an album is in no way the same thing as buying an album (and that does still contribute to the album chart under this system even if it is in a minuscule way). The principle of including streams in the singles chart makes some sort of sense because you're still consuming the same product, but that isn't the case with albums unless they literally only count an album streaming 'sale' if someone listenes to the entire album.

 

The only benefit from this is cosmetically mildly improved 'sales', while the loss is the unambiguity of the chart and the level playing ground. That's of course ignoring the fact that sales aren't a level playing ground to begin with due to various other factors but it'll still make it worse, especially for Taylor Swift and anyone else who follows her example.

Is it being put in place to make album sales seem healthier though? Or is it genuinely because it will reflect what albums people are actually listening to on a weekly basis more? The naive me thinks it's the latter.

I think you are being incredibly naive. Last week was the first instance of albums in the Top 75 selling fewer than 1,000 copies. I think that was the last straw!

 

The #200 sold just 419 copies, that's the population of a small village :lol:

Edited February 11, 201510 yr by Doctor Blind

The album chart has never aimed to represent what people are listening to, it's always been specifically a *sales* list. If that is the OCC's motivation (which they might claim it to be but in reality Doctor Blind is almost certainly correct here) then they're making a very sudden about turn after decades of sticking to their guns.

I saw this coming a mile off, it had to happen sometime, my only grievance why 1 March, they could have implemented it from 1 January of this year.

 

Well... we see how it works when the wheels are in motion, and how it will effect the singles chart as well.

OTOH, if there are only ten tracks on the album, all 2.3m streams will count.

 

Surely if it's only 10 tracks they can just use the average of the next 8 tracks for the top 2? I mean considering it's averages, it should be fine. If not, then perhaps it'll make artists release albums of at least 12 tracks. I mean I'd be all up for that as some artists I like end up releasing just 10 track albums when I'd love a little more material from them.

Surely if it's only 10 tracks they can just use the average of the next 8 tracks for the top 2? I mean considering it's averages, it should be fine. If not, then perhaps it'll make artists release albums of at least 12 tracks. I mean I'd be all up for that as some artists I like end up releasing just 10 track albums when I'd love a little more material from them.

That may be what they do. If so, it would make more sense as it would avoid the figures being distorted by one or two very popular tracks.

 

On the second point, surely it depends on the length of the tracks. To take an extreme example, Tubular Bells has just two tracks. If CDs had been around at the time, it may well have hd just one. Or, to take a less extreme example, Brothers In Arms has nine tracks on the CD but lasts for 55 minutes. Another album might have 14 tracks but not even clock in at 45 minutes.

Because streaming a few songs from an album is in no way the same thing as buying an album (and that does still contribute to the album chart under this system even if it is in a minuscule way). The principle of including streams in the singles chart makes some sort of sense because you're still consuming the same product, but that isn't the case with albums unless they literally only count an album streaming 'sale' if someone listenes to the entire album.

 

The only benefit from this is cosmetically mildly improved 'sales', while the loss is the unambiguity of the chart and the level playing ground. That's of course ignoring the fact that sales aren't a level playing ground to begin with due to various other factors but it'll still make it worse, especially for Taylor Swift and anyone else who follows her example.

It goes back to the argument against streaming being added to the singles due to "the singles chart being a sales chart". It may have always been a sales only chart in the past but that's only because there was no other way of getting your music. I think that applies to albums and streaming too. I do understand your points though and it's quite clear that adding streams to the album chart is much different to adding it to the singles so I think the arguments against this stand more ground than they did for the singles. It's true that it's not strictly fair that you don't have to listen to a whole album - it seems like it's become a joint effort to give an album 'sales' through streaming - but if it's the same for every album then it is fairer in that respect (aside people like Taylor Swift of course, but it's their choice if they're not participating). Sorry that this probably doesn't make much sense!

That may be what they do. If so, it would make more sense as it would avoid the figures being distorted by one or two very popular tracks.

 

On the second point, surely it depends on the length of the tracks. To take an extreme example, Tubular Bells has just two tracks. If CDs had been around at the time, it may well have hd just one. Or, to take a less extreme example, Brothers In Arms has nine tracks on the CD but lasts for 55 minutes. Another album might have 14 tracks but not even clock in at 45 minutes.

 

Yes, times could be an issue. Although I think overall it won't be too much of an issue. Album tracks less than 30 seconds long should be exluded (such as interludes) and those with few tracks that are very long could be weighted? I'm not sure if you make more money streaming a 20 minute song vs a 3 minute song but I would think you do. That could get quite messy though at defining times/streaming 30 seconds of a 10 minute long song isn't the same as 30 seconds of a 1-2 minute long track etc.

Edited February 11, 201510 yr by Envoirment

No doubt the OCC will be back-dating this streaming for year-end purposes to some arbitrary point in time, telling us that this is apparently for the end-of-year chart and then not actually incorporating all of it into the end-of-year chart anyway and constantly referring to "chart sales" since said arbitrary point in time even though in the million sellers list they aren't counting it. MESS.

OTOH, if there are only ten tracks on the album, all 2.3m streams will count.

 

What? Why would they do that?

What? Why would they do that?

That depends on whether the calculation method in the report is an example. If it is always a case of adjusting the two most popular tracks to the average of the rest of the album, then they will always be mitigating the effect of one or two very popular tracks. Regardless, it still means that an album with eight long tracks will suffer against an album with twelve short songs.

Here's the official announcement.

 

http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/u...irst-time-3479/

I don't see what the length of the songs has to do with anything.

I don't see what the length of the songs has to do with anything.

Because an album with eight six-minute songs is arguably better value than an album with twelve three-minute songs.

I feel like Taylor Swift is waiting for this Apple/Beats Music streaming thing that is coming this spring/summer apparently, especially due to the reports about Apple buying her record label or something!

Because an album with eight six-minute songs is arguably better value than an album with twelve three-minute songs.

 

Well they haven't explained whether they will do any weighting for tracks with fewer than 12 tracks yet, but I suspect they will.

Well not issue with this, just happy it happened after Bob Dylan's album came out cause his album isn't streaming anywhere. I wonder if this will affect streaming release dates, if an artist withelds an album for streaming for a few months like Sam Smith did, he may not have had a number one straight away. The other good thing about this is it probably means that spotify etc won't get exclusive rights to streaming albums like they do with a few artists- Led Zeppelin etc

Well they haven't explained whether they will do any weighting for tracks with fewer than 12 tracks yet, but I suspect they will.

I see you have already asked the question on Twitter. You beat me to it!

I have to fully admit that I don't completely understand the methodology.

 

If all the songs streams of an album are being averaged out and then divided by 1000, how does this affect singles streaming? Could the same stream technically be giving steaming sales to the album and single at the same time?