I am sorry but I feel the inclusion of streaming has killed the singles chart. There is little to no movement, and it feels as if the chart is being engineered to favour certain acts and labels. It's the biggest mistake the OCC made including this and it's unfair on those acts who have missed out on the summit or even a Top 40 place due to this biased system.

 

Will the OCC realise a mistake has been made or are we stuck with it?

It's making the chart less interesting, but I don't see what can be done about it. They couldn't allow the chart to slowly become irrelevant.

Chart is less interesting, but the songs need the sales figures.

 

 

I'd rather they didn't f*** up the all-time chart with it. A sale is hardly the same thing as a stream.

Edited May 28, 201510 yr by Griffit

I'd rather they didn't f*** up the all-time chart with it. A sale is hardly the same thing as a stream.

 

They aren't, yet

It's annoying because whatever your opinion is, the fact is streaming is rising and rising year on year and is becoming the next big thing. Just like physical single sales are now 96% digital. I think OCC just wanted to keep up with the current trends, I hope streaming doesn't take over actual downloads but unfortunately I think that will be the case in the future. It was going to happen eventually (them incorporating streams) but thank god we don't have YouTube streams or anything like America does, then it's basically just a free for all

It makes the chart somewhat stale at times.

Union J got dropped because of streaming.

Union J got dropped because of streaming.

 

You do realise that wasn't funny the first 72 times you said it, right?

Streaming isn't killing the chart at all. Sure, it's making some songs stick around longer and some newer songs miss out, but the majority of these songs only miss the one week anyway, and whilst I'd have much preferred these fresh one-weekers in the chart over the stale Sam Smith tracks for example, it's just the way streaming is and it's more representative of what's popular. It's not damaging the chart at all, it's just moving with the times.

The chart does get boring with the same tracks week on week, but there is nothing you can do about it, streaming is the way forward. Anyhow we won't be listening to old music when the chart is announced on a Friday as the chart will be watered down to a top 20 probably a quick rundown of Nos. 40 to 21, playing the odd new entries in between.

Union J got dropped because of streaming.

 

That sounds like a big plus point for streaming then... :lol:

And there is another thing that should be considered when we talk about streaming "killing" anything.

 

Now a top-10 is much more valuable than it was before. Back in the day you could throw all the forces to get that one top-10 week and then slump down. Streaming kind of prevents chart manipulations like this one. Now almost every week we have a front-loaded release which goes top-10/5 on sales but misses the top-10 with streaming incorporated. And only those get there who have really big download sales and/or some longevity.

 

Top-40 hit is now an actual HIT, especially for not well-known artists, while 10 years ago if you started at 28 or something you'd probably be considered as a flop.

 

Even top-75/100 hits are more valuable, look at 'I Bet' and 'Ship to Wreck' hanging in there for a while.

Not a huge streaming fan but weren't the charts overly stale and slow before it's inclusion anyway?

Not a huge streaming fan but weren't the charts overly stale and slow before it's inclusion anyway?

Yep, in fact people said exactly the same when downloads were added to the chart.

Streaming isn't killing the chart at all. Sure, it's making some songs stick around longer and some newer songs miss out, but the majority of these songs only miss the one week anyway, and whilst I'd have much preferred these fresh one-weekers in the chart over the stale Sam Smith tracks for example, it's just the way streaming is and it's more representative of what's popular. It's not damaging the chart at all, it's just moving with the times.

Completely agree with this, but I'd add that by making the chart more representative of what is popular, it is actually saving the chart. Compare to the physical chart where 80-90% of it is pretty much obscure to the general public. As digital sales decline, a sales only chart will slowly head in that direction too.

 

I do think streaming is bound to speed up at least somewhat eventually. It's just that the format is still growing in popularity, and the sorts of people who are newly using it are more likely to drag everyone back since they're probably less likely to listen to the absolute newest music.

Edited May 28, 201510 yr by Dircadirca

And there is another thing that should be considered when we talk about streaming "killing" anything.

 

Now a top-10 is much more valuable than it was before. Back in the day you could throw all the forces to get that one top-10 week and then slump down. Streaming kind of prevents chart manipulations like this one. Now almost every week we have a front-loaded release which goes top-10/5 on sales but misses the top-10 with streaming incorporated. And only those get there who have really big download sales and/or some longevity.

 

Top-40 hit is now an actual HIT, especially for not well-known artists, while 10 years ago if you started at 28 or something you'd probably be considered as a flop.

 

Even top-75/100 hits are more valuable, look at 'I Bet' and 'Ship to Wreck' hanging in there for a while.

Absolutely. Admittedly it is a shame that some songs miss out on the Top 40 and a chance of being played on Radio 1 if they hadn't been playlisted, but, in the grand scheme of things, does it really matter if a song hits #37 or #54 if it's only going to disappear within a two or three weeks anyway? Most of the time, songs only really become proper hits if they get good airplay so streaming isn't really changing what's successful or not, just making the successful songs more so.

the charts were once exciting and vibrant and varied (pretty much from the early 60's through to 2012 or thereabout), now they're slow, dull, and heavily-geared towards a minority of tracks, mostly in the EDM dance and pop genre only. Streaming ratios to sales are all wrong and they've made the charts stale to the point that the BBC is cutting them in half when they play them. The more stale they get the less people will care about them. It's self-fulfilling in the end as people stop listening they lose touch with what's in the charts, and so the big hits take even longer to reach a national consciousness, and so they hang around even longer...

 

Sales are not in crisis and there was no reason to include the streaming data in the sales chart (which is still interesting) it could have kept it's own chart (which is hideously dull, being as it's repeat listens by the same people week after week, and includes passive "radio-style" listening). The record industry loves streaming for the revenue it generates for them, but streaming companies have yet to prove they are going to last and make a profit. It's all based on assumption and talking down sales as dead in the water. I will always buy new music because I like "owning" them and having them to listen to wherever and whenever I like, and I like old and new stuff that isn't available on spitify and the rest.

 

I"ve stopped listening to the Top 40 now, for the first time in my life (I started in 1968) not because I'm out of touch with modern music, or too old, I've stopped because it's so boring. The cut-down version might help a bit, but even then I don't think I could stomach 6 months of the same Ed Sheeran and Sam Smith and John Legend tracks, or whichever big hits turn up next. The only way round that? Stop playing records after 12 weeks, 3 months is long enough for anyone to suffer!

I'm not really against streaming per say but does anybody think it'll ever be possible that instead of 1000 streams counting as one single sale it could maybe double to 2000 per sale or even 5000 per sale? It'd help stop songs reaching the all time charts despite being less popular than some of the songs not on that chart, maybe 1000 per sale is just too little?

The charts were way more interesting back in the 90's early 2000's period when we used to have 12 to 14 new entries per week, me & my friends in Lebanon used to enjoy listening to the UK charts because of the fresh new music and load of new entries, compared to the US charts which was slow & stale, now most people have lost interest in the UK charts because u see the same songs & artists week after week, and month after month, and since the inclusion of downloads & streaming, there is no place anymore for older established artists to reach the higher positions in the charts. Classic acts like Madonna, Kylie, Pet Shop Boys, Erasure, Depeche Mode etc have suffered to even reach the top 40 since the inclusion of digital music into the charts.

 

It's a fact though, the industry has moved on from the physical format & now even the album format has become irrelevant, since most artists are discounting their albums to 99 p in order to get inflated sales which is quite ridiculous. Whether we like it or not, there will be a monopoly of a few acts like we have now with Ed Sheeran & Sam Smith and the rest will have a hard time reaching the chart....