He really hasn't ruined the charts. It was bound to happen anyway - they weren't saying Bryan Adams had ruined the charts when he spent 16 weeks at the top, were they?

 

The charts are a fair and accurate representation of the most popular songs in the country.

Merged with the appropriate streaming thread!

I think they should make it that only paying members streaming counts towards the charts. I like that the charts are slower but it is getting a little ridiculous.

Digital Spy :rofl:

 

the salty tears of the chart traditionalists getting all mad about 'One Dance' <3 oh how I love the taste

 

 

I think they should make it that only paying members streaming counts towards the charts. I like that the charts are slower but it is getting a little ridiculous.

 

I disagree with this, if you're gonna include streaming, you can't pick and choose who counts and who doesn't. Free users' streams count just as much as paid for users' streams do.

I disagree with this, if you're gonna include streaming, you can't pick and choose who counts and who doesn't. Free users' streams count just as much as paid for users' streams do.

 

Well it would cut out most of the people who just play the playlists (the reason why the charts are so slow!)

Well it would cut out most of the people who just play the playlists (the reason why the charts are so slow!)

 

I don't see any correlation here, paid subscribers can just as easily play the playlists? :P

People are never going to let this go are they? :drama:

 

At least Major Lazer/Justin Bieber will take the #1 next week so at least people can't moan about Drake overtaking Bryan Adams' record.

Digital Spy :rofl:[/img]

They need to get their facts right: "Rihanna's 'Umbrella' hung on at number one for eight weeks in 2008" - oh dear!

http://www.digitalspy.com/music/feature/a8...ever-heres-why/

 

I hope he does surpass 16 weeks now just to put the final nail in the coffin.

 

 

Just read that, a very interesting article.

Head of Radio One Chris Price now says the OCC Singles Chart no longer represents popular music taste.

 

:yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

 

About time. Sorry all you streaming fans, but it DOESN'T in any way represent general taste and general popularity of tracks. As Music Week's Editorial points out, Drake has been outsold by several singles this summer, it's not been an airplay hit, and general awareness of the track (outside of streaming-pushed sites) is very low. If it weren't for unpaid-for repeat editorial listens on Spotify and co it would have had max 3 or 4 weeks on top, and made way for the real summer hits (Justin/Kungs). They point out genuine crossover appeal hits, which have been huge worldwide (like Ex's and Oh's and You Don't Own me) get short shrift on streaming sites, and subsequently the OCC.

 

It has reached the stage where radio play is of more significance, in terms of reflecting a record's popularity, than streaming. Radio One is pushing for free-plays to be excluded from the charts. This has to happen because the charts are being streamed to a lifeless tiresome death. If you don't pay for your music, you shouldn't get to have it reflected in the chart any more than home-tapers did in the past (which was me!).

 

Time to bring the passion back into music charts :P

 

 

Streaming is the best way of representing general popularity of tracks. I seem to hear all this talk of "streaming ruining the charts" but how is it ruining the chart any more than frontloaded fanbase singles going 5-24-OUT or 'fake' cover versions charting? (yes I think the rise of streaming was responsible for everything being OA/OS these days which totally killed the trend of 'fake' songs in the chart). Besides, paid-for-sales only count for 20% of the singles chart. It would be wrong to exclude the 80%.

 

Now that we have the technology to know just what and how much songs are being played by music consumers that should definitely be taken into account in the charts, instead of using just paid-for-sales (which are currently at 2006-7 levels and in terminal decline).

 

Of course the Radio 1 heads aren't liking the takeover of streaming as it means less young people are listening to their radio station. The OCC shouldn't be persuaded by them to change the chart just to suit radio though, it should do its job in telling us the most popular songs of the week. Drake's song is incredibly popular and no-one should be denying that. Admittedly it getting 15 weeks at #1 is a bit flukey but that was mostly down to Justin and Calvin releasing while the song was at its peak - they would've been #1s otherwise.

 

If Radio 1 don't like the chart why don't they axe the chart show already? They're already making less than a half-arsed effort with it at the moment and it's come to the point where Capital or something would do a better job of hosting it.

I'm afraid, though, if Radio 1 don't sponsor the chart show (and get decent listening figures) then they won't bother running it, and if Music Week also feel it no longer represents overall popularity (which it doesn't - it represents listening habits of teens who don't pay for music) then it ceases to be needed anymore. Its no good for breaking new music, it's no good for recognising music tastes of non-streamers who still love music, and it's no good for radio programmers.

 

I really don't get why everyone is so obsessed with records having long runs because people keep playing hits. The charts have never been about what people are playing over and over obsessively, it's been about what's new and fresh and replacing the big hits of last week - while continuing to play last week's big hits that you bought but don't count to the new chart.

 

As Music Week points out, when Bryan Adams and Wet wet Wet ruled for months on end, they were events, everyone in the country seemed to be aware of them, they were on radio, TV, cinema, week after week, genuine mass hits. Drake just is NOT a mass hit, not in any way, not in sales, not on radio, not on TV - but he is big amongst a large fanbase streamers and passive chart-streamers.

 

End of the day, if Radio One don't support the chart it will die. If the chart compliers don't reduce the 80% weighting by removing advertorial streaming (which is just silly) then we all will lose out. :(

 

If streaming's being included, it needs to be ALL streaming, you can't just exclude those who don't pay subscriptions. It's not like recording onto a tape or illegal downloading because Spotify and the artists get money through the adverts. A stream is a stream and I don't think it's fair to separate those who want/can afford a subscription from those who don't or can't.

I don't believe any US radio station broadcasts the Billboard top 40 and that chart is still very much alive and relevant...

 

Besides, Joseph's point is very relevant. Ad supported streaming =/= illegal downloading.

The charts have never been about what people are playing over and over obsessively, it's been about what's new and fresh and replacing the big hits of last week - while continuing to play last week's big hits that you bought but don't count to the new chart.

My argument is that the reason the charts have never before been about what people were playing/listening to over and over is because there just wasn't a reliable way of doing so. If we pretend that streaming was such a thing at the creation of the charts, then perhaps it would have been taken into consideration from the start.

Well people can whine on about how amazing streaming is and how it represents what is popular and so on and you can laugh at Digitalspy for putting out this article but at the end of the day it states a clear truth: people don't care about the chart anymore. It's literally just a handful of people on this forum that do. Most of Drake's fans probably don't even know One Dance has been no.1 for so long and the knowledge of this would mean nothing to them.

 

Is popularity measured best on how many times people play the song? Or how many people the song can entice to part money for it?

Is popularity measured best on how many times people play the song? Or how many people the song can entice to part money for it?

Definitely the former in today's market at least, seeing as download sales are much lower than streaming equivalent sales, and purchasing a download is soon going to become very much a thing of the past anyway.

Well people can whine on about how amazing streaming is and how it represents what is popular and so on and you can laugh at Digitalspy for putting out this article but at the end of the day it states a clear truth: people don't care about the chart anymore. It's literally just a handful of people on this forum that do. Most of Drake's fans probably don't even know One Dance has been no.1 for so long and the knowledge of this would mean nothing to them.

 

Is popularity measured best on how many times people play the song? Or how many people the song can entice to part money for it?

 

The chart hasn't been popular for years - I don't believe it has anything to do with the fact that streaming is now incorporated into the chart.

 

The chart may not have been popular for years but there were at least some people interested. I work in a school and I used to hear kids talk about what was no.1 all the time and now that is no longer the case. The media used to make a big deal about the charts even when sales were at an all time low. That really hasn't been the case of late despite Drake's impressive feat.

 

I'm not saying streaming should be removed from the charts. That boat has long sailed and I could do without the lynch mob on here trying to make me feel ridiculous.

 

Just as we oldies (at 27 btw) have to face the fact of streaming in the charts and the death of sales, the rest will have to come to terms with the fact that people care less for the charts than they ever have. And no amount of posting in the YTD threads 'omg amazing! 12 million sellers this year!!!1!' Is going to change that.