I agree with all the statements about finding some way of limiting the streams for a song - firstly finding some way of separating paid streams and not counting free users towards the chart is a perfect idea, as personally I don't think somebody should be contributing to the chart without paying a penny. This could make a massive difference - I'm not sure exactly how many people use Spotify for free, but pretty much everybody I've spoken to about it does! Secondly, though the difference here would be miniscule as barely anybody actually listens to the same song week after week, I also agree that one user shouldn't be able to contribute more than 1 sale equivalent. This is just on principle, as when I buy a single I will often listen to it well over 100 times, and don't like the idea that I'm contributing less to the chart than somebody who didn't even buy it! I may just be old-fashioned though :P

but isn't the reason why the chart is so slow because everyone is listening to the same few songs every week? 'One Dance' being the perfect example of a song that really connected with its target demographic that couldn't get enough of the song for ages so it spent 15 weeks at #1.

some of us are free subscribers, we don't pay directly but the ads pay for us :) and listening to some of those ads is pure torture, like listen to the new Spanish single from Enrique Iglesias every 30 minutes :)

 

I really think the solution is caping the total streams per song per person to 1 sale... or x streams, count only 10 streams and thats it

but isn't the reason why the chart is so slow because everyone is listening to the same few songs every week? 'One Dance' being the perfect example of a song that really connected with its target demographic that couldn't get enough of the song for ages so it spent 15 weeks at #1.

I think you'd probably be surprised, the majority of users contributing to One Dance's sales probably didn't actually listen to it 100 times - it was just a sheer mass of people listening to it whilst it was #1 on streaming and top of all the playlists causing the problem! I may be wrong though... If so, it only strengthens my opinion that each user should be limited to one sale!

I think you'd probably be surprised, the majority of users contributing to One Dance's sales probably didn't actually listen to it 100 times - it was just a sheer mass of people listening to it whilst it was #1 on streaming and top of all the playlists causing the problem! I may be wrong though... If so, it only strengthens my opinion that each user should be limited to one sale!

no I don't think most people listened to it 100 times, but I wouldn't be surprised if a large amount of people (casual listeners) streamed 'One Dance' 3-5 times a week for X amount of weeks without tiring of the song, hence it holding up so well for so long.

no I don't think most people listened to it 100 times, but I wouldn't be surprised if a large amount of people (casual listeners) streamed 'One Dance' 3-5 times a week for X amount of weeks without tiring of the song, hence it holding up so well for so long.

Oh, I get your point. I think my wording was quite bad there, sorry! Of course I agree people were listening to it week after week, but my point was that it wasn't getting millions of streams because the same people were listening to it hundreds of times - more because of the sheer number of people listening to it a few times. Hence why I don't think stopping counting streams after 100 would actually make much difference to the chart, I just think it's only fair.

Another thing is, when people buy a song, they "stream" the song many times on their ipods or computers, so why shouldnt those count? The whole thing is a mess, never have the charts (across the world in general, who use streaming) have been this bad.

Another thing is, when people buy a song, they "stream" the song many times on their ipods or computers, so why shouldnt those count?

because record companies don't get revenue every time you play a song that you've already bought?

 

unless of course you buy it, then listen to it on a streaming service.

 

because record companies don't get revenue every time you play a song that you've already bought?

 

unless of course you buy it, then listen to it on a streaming service.

 

But the chart was never about revenue, it was about sales. Once you start putting streaming = sales, then that puts sales (and playing it as much as you want) at a disadvantage. If it was about revenue, then it would be something like the German charts used to be, using a revenue point system, and many things matter in a chart like that, including the price of a song. That was never the case in the UK, and I dont like it at all.

Edited September 3, 20168 yr by Euphorique

I just had an idea - it'd be cool if Spotify put the few biggest releases at the start of the Top 50 playlist [to really put emphasis on the whole new music Friday thing], so the songs would enter the top 50 straight away*, and then the new releases would have more of an instant impact.

 

* - obviously that is if they got enough plays overall to reach the top 50 but this extra exposure would surely be enough to push it into the top 50 on the first day of release, but the track would be took off the start of the playlist the next day regardless of whether it did reach the top 50 or not.

 

Hope it makes sense :heehee:

Edited September 3, 20168 yr by mdh

It wouldn't make any sense to include songs in the Top 50 playlist that weren't actually in the top 50. They should promote a new music playlist all week though instead of just on the Friday

re the above suggestions, what’s in it for Apple and Spotify? the OCC can’t possibly produce a credible chart without them; therefore since these 2 effectively have the OCC by the short and curlies, they can VETO anything that would reduce the importance of their streams and curated playlists...

 

the next evolution of the chart will arguably be the complete removal of sales data, now paid for sales are back down to mid 00’s levels it won’t be long before they're deemed wholly irrelevant. we could well see the emergence of a ‘global’ chart that usurps the place of national charts within the next decade~

Surely the next step in the evolution of the chart is not having one at all. The majority of people haven't given a shit for years and this is more so now when people who've been following the charts for 20 years loyally have now given up completely.

Surely the next step in the evolution of the chart is not having one at all. The majority of people haven't given a shit for years and this is more so now when people who've been following the charts for 20 years loyally have now given up completely.

 

that's been the case since time immemorial ~ a vocal minority have always thrown their toys out of the pram when faced with change: the introduction of cds, downloads and now streaming~ :heehee:

Indeed - surely its only a matter of time before the next musical phenomenon grips us all and makes streaming practically extinct (not as if sales are in that bad of a state, at least not right now).

that's been the case since time immemorial ~ a vocal minority have always thrown their toys out of the pram when faced with change: the introduction of cds, downloads and now streaming~ :heehee:

 

Yes but there was always that group who followed the charts through everything-like a lot of the prominent older members on here. These people will clearly admit that they've not been into popular music for some time but still followed the chart because it was interesting. It no longer is. It's stagnated and does not hold peoples' interest.

 

Exactly what is it about today's chart that keeps you interested? Do you actually tune in every week?

The charts have always had chart rules altered and I've remained there for them for 45 years. Most people lose touch with the charts cos they have jobs and kids taking up time so they just lose touch till the kids become teens. I've been a staunch chart defender my whole life and I'm not afraid of change.

 

I'm against streaming dominated (currently 85%) charts though in principle because it has been set up badly illogically and with inbuilt problems that are killing interest in charts themselves - other than as a huge marketing tool for the majors superstars.

 

I swear drake could fart into a microphone autotune it get bieber to fart into a microphone as featured autotuned vocalist get it remixed by chainsmokers bung in one of the rentarappers and it would top the streaming chart for the next 12 month's :lol:

The absolute biggest change that NEEDS to happen though, is Spotify and other streaming services must stop advertising their "most played" playlist so much - it just leads to people listening to songs purely because they've been listened to so many times already, which for obvious reasons is really bad for chart movement.

Can agree, but the problem is that from Spotify's perspective, it's very handy to have because it's an easy, appealing thing to get people streaming heaps of songs rather than booting it up with no strong inclination on what they want to do.

 

I feel like they should put the local top 50 in higher prominance than the global one though, all that does is add another unnecessary peg to disadvantage artists in their own country, which has dire consequences if its influence grows. Imagine if in the heyday of the iTunes store, every country had the same frontpage, same chart on display, same new releases on display. Spotify isn't at that level but they need to focus on a better balance.

 

I do wonder though if all these big playlists being frequented so readily is just an effect of how new most people are to the platform. Once people have used it more and get more comfortable with it, maybe then these playlists won't be so popular. Or alternatively, the demographics would gradually diversify to the point that there's less of an easy concensus for them to push to. Before too long there will be kids who think Justin Bieber and the like are old hat :lol:

Did anyone else listen to The Pepsi Chart back in the early 00's?

 

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/350x300q90/921/IlGdgd.jpg

 

It was hosted each week on a Sunday, and it wasn't too different to the official chart hosted on Radio 1, but I'm not sure how they measured the performance of songs for that chart. Needless to say it doesn't exist anymore. :rolleyes:

Did anyone else listen to The Pepsi Chart back in the early 00's?

 

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/350x300q90/921/IlGdgd.jpg

 

It was hosted each week on a Sunday, and it wasn't too different to the official chart hosted on Radio 1, but I'm not sure how they measured the performance of songs for that chart. Needless to say it doesn't exist anymore. :rolleyes:

The Pepsi Chart was compiled using the same sales data as the official chart as well as incorporating airplay data. The top 10 was sales only, so was the same as the Top 10 on the official chart. Positions 11 to 40 were a mix of sales (provided by CIN / OCC) and airplay data (provided by Music Control). The ratio for sales to airplay in positions 11 to 40 was 30:70 though this was later increased in favour of sales to 50:50. The airplay data used was restricted solely to airplay of records on stations that broadcast the chart (so airplay on, for example, Radio 1, was ignored). The outcome of this mix of sales and airplay often meant that some records would remain stuck at number 11 for weeks because they were highly popular on radio but sales weren't enough to get them into or keep them in the (official) top 10.

I swear drake could fart into a microphone autotune it get bieber to fart into a microphone as featured autotuned vocalist get it remixed by chainsmokers bung in one of the rentarappers and it would top the streaming chart for the next 12 month's :lol:

 

You've hit on an important point, albeit in a satirical way.

 

Streaming has quickly become so dominant, that non-streaming-friendly acts/genres are virtually shut out, thus influencing & restricting the choice of music that artists will be prepared to make. :(