But a lot of the early #1's from last year weren't really big releases (I would consider), they just took advantage of the volatile chart environment. Tracks like Tsunami, I Wanna Feel & I'm The Man all disappeared rather quickly for #1 singles whereas this year only Lay Me Down isn't currently in the top 40 (and that's because it was the CR single).

Even though I'm not a fan of streaming being added as sales I certainly don't think it's killing the charts - I'd much rather the UK moved with the times like they did with downloads etc rather than letting the charts becoming a joke and having a 20k selling #1.

yeah, it's definitely radio that's killing the chart more than streaming is. The sales chart isn't a lot better than the official one in terms of long runners, if commercial radio actually played more of a variety of music the chart would be more interesting to follow

yeah, it's definitely radio that's killing the chart more than streaming is. The sales chart isn't a lot better than the official one in terms of long runners, if commercial radio actually played more of a variety of music the chart would be more interesting to follow

Another good point there!

It's not going to kill the charts but it is going to kill my interest in them. The music I tend to listen to goes no-where near the chart any more so it's not as if I have any songs to follow in the chart.

I'm with the majority here, in that the charts and music industry of today no longer really interest me any more. I don't download singles (too likely to fail for me to want to spend the money) and can't buy them physical any more, not that there's anything I want want to buy particularly. With youtube/streaming I no longer buy greatest hits albums and never really bought regular albums anyway, and until recently my last foothold in contemporary chart music was buying each Now album when it came out, but I haven't bought the last two now as I'm not really interested in anything on them any more. Net result is that for the first time since I was about 11 I am not putting any money at all into the music industry, unless a free steaming account somehow puts any money in even though I almost never see an advert via it.

We used to define a chart as a tabulation of sales in a week, then it became psuedo-sales in a week, now it's going to become psuedo-sales in a psuedo-week so it is even becoming statistically pointless as well as being musically pointless.

 

My solution as of the start of this year has been to start again from the 90s. Each week I put together a streaming list of the equivelant weeks chart from 25 years ago to listen to, and pretend I'm living back in the age of real sales of real music in a real week......

What annoys me is, it feels as if the chart is engineered - ie certain songs have to go to #1, certain acts have to be around etc.

Do you not think that was more evident before the inclusion of streaming? Remember the first half of last year, when the #1 single changed every week because of the labels holding them back strategically to get them to #1. Of course that still happens now but back then it was borderline ridiculous! I'd say back then the singles chart was much more prone to manipulation than it is now.

The purpose of the singles chart is to accurately reflect the popularity of different tracks. The decline in download sales show that more people are increasingly using streaming as an alternative to purchasing. Therefore if the chart is to continue to accurately reflect the marketplace, it HAS to include streaming data.

 

Yes the chart is slower with fewer new entries and some tracks are peaking lower than they previously would. But I don't think the chart is predictable, certainly not like it was 15 years ago when you could look at a release schedule and predict each no.1 weeks in advance. Those were the days when the charts were "engineered" by record companies who knew exactly how to work the market to their advantage. Much easier for them back then when all sales were physical. The record companies haven't got to grips with streaming yet. They need to find a way of maximising streaming & sales in the same week to give a track a high peak. At the moment a lot of tracks enter the chart and it takes a week or so before they start climbing on Spotify. No doubt the introduction of the new chart week in July will further complicate things, perhaps?

 

Last point - You can't blame the singles chart for new music or artists failing. The charts showcase popular music not new music.

I like long running no.1s but begin to tire if a track has been in the chart for 30+ weeks. But streaming didn't cause that, things were going that way anyway. I agree that radio is killing the charts more.

I'll reciprocate with the comments re: the industry hasn't yet got to grips with streaming yet. Yes, it has been around for a few years already but the thing is services like Spotify and Deezer are still not accessible enough in the same way say, iTunes was when downloads were incorporated, it slowly became more accessible after the first year of it. It's going to take a few years of slog as it did with downloads before there's a real boom in streaming.

 

Only once they become more accessible, particularly to a younger demographic who are of the 'download' generation particularly for more fanbase led artists - The Vamps, Conor Maynard, those sort of acts - will we see the real 'return of investment' if you will and have a more varied, less static chart. I think once the Friday global release day kicks in in July that'll certainly shake things up a bit.

I'm all for the charts moving with the times, but for me there are 2 fundamental issues with the inclusion of streaming:

 

1) A stream doesn't have a shelf life in a way that sales always did. OK so downloads don't get removed from the shelves in the way that physical singles were but still fundamentally once someone has bought a download they're unlikely to buy it again any time soon. This principle is part of what makes the charts turn over: once most of the people who like a song own it it will fall out of the charts, even if only gradually. With streaming that principle no longer applies: as long as people want to listen to a song it will keep charting. Yes eventually songs will still drop out as new music comes along, but to me this is why the streaming chart will always be staler than the sales chart.

 

2) The 100:1 ratio of streams to sales seems to have been conceived in a very arbitrary way, presumably based on how much impact they wanted streaming to have on the charts rather than anything properly researched. The fact that they've used such a round number says to me that it can't have been thought through very carefully. I know there's no way of coming up with the perfect ratio to use but at least I think they should have tried to think of a scientific way of doing this using research based on several years of data and statistical analysis. In my view they should have done this research and published their findings on how many streams should constitute a sale and whether this might change over time before they started to incorporate streaming in the charts. Now it feels like we're stuck with this arbitrary ratio, which as well as affecting the weekly positions in a dubious way makes 'sales' figures seem much less meaningful.

Only once they become more accessible, particularly to a younger demographic who are of the 'download' generation particularly for more fanbase led artists - The Vamps, Conor Maynard, those sort of acts - will we see the real 'return of investment' if you will and have a more varied, less static chart. I think once the Friday global release day kicks in in July that'll certainly shake things up a bit.

 

That's not going to make the chart less static. If anything it'll make the chart more static. Fanbases can't influence a streaming chart in the same was as a sales chart.

 

Also, someone was saying that in the past you could just look at the release schedule and know all the #1s way in advance. How is it any different now? It's been clear as day for months that Cheerleader was going to be massive. Same with other songs like Am I Wrong, All About That Bass, etc, we all knew those songs would be huge months before they actually got #1. Even stuff like Lean On and Where Are U Now, those songs got massive amounts of streams on Spotify from day 1, so it was obvious they'd become big chart hits.

 

The charts are just going to be a lot slower now, there's nothing we can do about it, we just have to get over it.

 

The best way we can speed up the charts is to get Capital FM to change what it plays. The main two things Capital needs to change to speed up the charts are lower the amount of spins it gives to songs in high rotation. Apparently now it's 70+ times a week, so it should lower it to 40 times a week (even lower would be nice). But what's probably even more important is for how LONG songs are kept in high rotation. In the past Capital kept songs like We Found Love and Moves Like Jagger in high rotation for over a year, which is why those songs had such long chart runs. If Capital could decide that they'd only let songs have high rotation for a maximum of 2-3 months, then put them on lower rotation (e.g. 20 spins a week max) afterwards, that would help the big hits drop out faster.

 

But really, as long as songs like Uptown Funk or Thinking Out Loud are getting promoted on the radio to hundreds of thousands of people every hour every day, they're not going to drop out the top 40... This kind of promotion is like someone getting to perform the same song on X Factor every weekend, you can't expect the charts to move fast when songs get such high levels of airplay for such a long time.

 

However, Capital FM is never going to change. My suggestions are pointless, and just wishful thinking... Another option for chart followers is to focus more on the #41-#200 section of the chart. You get some interesting songs down there and whilst you still get a lot of old songs hanging around seemingly forever, you also get a lot of new entries to freshen it up.

Edited May 29, 201510 yr by Eric_Blob

However, Capital FM is never going to change. My suggestions are pointless, and just wishful thinking...

Bring back Galaxy! :D

It was only last year we were having a new number one practically every week, i Think its good that singles are spending longer at no.1, Bryan Adams record may be beaten yet..

Edited May 29, 201510 yr by fiesta

It was only last year we were having a new number one practically every week, i Think its good that singles are spending longer at no.1, Bryan Adams record may be beaten yet..

 

I dread to think someone hogging the #1 spot for 4 months+ again :lol:

 

My solution as of the start of this year has been to start again from the 90s. Each week I put together a streaming list of the equivelant weeks chart from 25 years ago to listen to, and pretend I'm living back in the age of real sales of real music in a real week......

 

Uhm so basically there's nothing wrong in anything, it's called nostalgia and it's natural.

 

It's certainly ruined the million sellers list !!!

 

That's not going to make the chart less static. If anything it'll make the chart more static. Fanbases can't influence a streaming chart in the same was as a sales chart.

 

There's time enough yet - I know fanbase driven acts have always been the scourge of the 'authentic hit' chart watchers but they are part of the record buying demographic regardless. They'll find a way.

 

I remember when downloads first factored into chart data and - to pull an example off the top of my head - McFly got the large bulk of their seven number ones (from 'I'll Be OK' onwards) by boosting download sales on release week with limited edition versions of the single sung by another band member (usually Dougie, such was his popularity in the teen mags at the time etc) that fans could access via text (I believe it was 7Digital who powered it), which made it more accessible particularly for their fans who didn't have an iTunes account and in turn, counted towards their chart position.

 

Technology has advanced so far forward from that time now, and that was only 10 years ago. Maybe one of the streaming services will allow access to something similar - I don't know what, necessarily. My point is, record companies will figure out a way how to boost streams for format heavy, fanbase driven artists. You just watch.

It's certainly ruined the million sellers list !!!

 

Streams aren't counted in the million sellers list.

I'm all for the charts moving with the times, but for me there are 2 fundamental issues with the inclusion of streaming:

 

1) A stream doesn't have a shelf life in a way that sales always did. OK so downloads don't get removed from the shelves in the way that physical singles were but still fundamentally once someone has bought a download they're unlikely to buy it again any time soon. This principle is part of what makes the charts turn over: once most of the people who like a song own it it will fall out of the charts, even if only gradually. With streaming that principle no longer applies: as long as people want to listen to a song it will keep charting. Yes eventually songs will still drop out as new music comes along, but to me this is why the streaming chart will always be staler than the sales chart.

 

2) The 100:1 ratio of streams to sales seems to have been conceived in a very arbitrary way, presumably based on how much impact they wanted streaming to have on the charts rather than anything properly researched. The fact that they've used such a round number says to me that it can't have been thought through very carefully. I know there's no way of coming up with the perfect ratio to use but at least I think they should have tried to think of a scientific way of doing this using research based on several years of data and statistical analysis. In my view they should have done this research and published their findings on how many streams should constitute a sale and whether this might change over time before they started to incorporate streaming in the charts. Now it feels like we're stuck with this arbitrary ratio, which as well as affecting the weekly positions in a dubious way makes 'sales' figures seem much less meaningful.

 

100% correct which is why streaming charts will always be stale.

 

When I bought my precious Abba Arrival album in 1976 I played it to death for a year - but none of those plays counted towards a chart, it was one sale for one week, and so the charts stayed fresh. The same people playing the same streaming album tracks for a year will mean the same weekly sales for a year. This generation is the first that gets to chart their listening (as opposed to purchasing) habits, so fairly obviously it's going to be stale and repetitive - and if streaming reaches a mass audience the more stale it's going to get, as people with niche interests get swallowed up by repeat plays of the same big ballads.