Let's not forget 'Shape Of You' spent nine weeks at number one in the sales chart (losing out only to Ed's own 'How Would You Feel' for one week and 'Galway Girl' last week, possibly this week as well). Ed would still have a complete domination of the #1 even without streaming.

 

Spotify is being defended here because it's how many people consume music today, and so should be represented in the chart. The issue is not with Spotify, but with the OCC doing nothing about the double-counting of album tracks in the singles and albums charts. I've been a Spotify user for nearly five years now so I will always defend it.

Let's not forget 'Shape Of You' spent nine weeks at number one in the sales chart (losing out only to Ed's own 'How Would You Feel' for one week and 'Galway Girl' last week, possibly this week as well). Ed would still have a complete domination of the #1 even without streaming.

 

Spotify is being defended here because it's how many people consume music today, and so should be represented in the chart. The issue is not with Spotify, but with the OCC doing nothing about the double-counting of album tracks in the singles and albums charts. I've been a Spotify user for nearly five years now so I will always defend it.

Absolutely. How can we deny that streaming isn't the way forward for a variety of media? The convenience of it is what we all wanted all along. Remember when we moaned songs were being held back sometimes 2 months or more just two or three years ago?!! We have everything at our fingertips.

starting to think that what we're all saying that Scandinavian countries can differentiate when someone streams an album or not, that's a sorta "urban legend" but it's not true :) at least it did not happen with Ed's album the other week

the so-called Scandinavian model got disproved the other day when Zara Larsson album tracks were around the same positions in the Spotify weekly chart and the official chart of Sweden, so I'm not so sure if the differentiating is actually possible at this stage.

 

I think for now we're just going to have to get used to album tracks making the chart.

the so-called Scandinavian model got disproved the other day when Zara Larsson album tracks were around the same positions in the Spotify weekly chart and the official chart of Sweden, so I'm not so sure if the differentiating is actually possible at this stage.

 

I think for now we're just going to have to get used to album tracks making the chart.

...unless as suggested here they adopted a calculation to subtract the album streams total from all album tracks in the singles chart, or create a rule for record

Companies to nominate singles.

How to change Spotify and the OCC chart:

 

1 - Only 'paid for' streams count to the top 50 Spotify Chart and the OCC Chart. 'Paid for' meaning streams from the subscription model of Spotify, not the free version. The premium version of Spotify is £9.99 a month which seems good value for money. Personally if I were in charge of Spotify I'd scrap the free version but that's just my opinion.

 

2 - Introduce a new album tracks chart for Spotify and the OCC chart. All non-single 'streaming hits' would go in those charts thereby leaving the official UK Singles chart free of album tracks.

 

I can't see any problem with these two suggestions. Free streams should not count to any singles chart and album tracks should not count to any singles chart. The fact the OCC is in league with Spotify and not its rival means the OCC won't implement such suggestions. The OCC should not run the official chart.

 

In an ideal world the official chart should be the rival of the Spotify Top 50 UK chart and the Big Top 40 chart. That's how it used to be. The official chart was the rival to the Network Chart, the two charts weren't pals! But now we've got the chairman of the official chart representing/marketing Spotify acts so there is no reason for the OCC to implement any changes. Scrap the OCC, remove them from running the chart and we could get major change.

Edited March 30, 20178 yr by soundman

Why shouldn't free-streams count towards the singles/album chart?

The entire history of the UK singles chart was based on singles paid for, not heard for free. Prior to streaming every single in the chart was based on units sold. It's unfair to have singles calculated based on free non-paid streams. It goes against the fundamental principle of the chart.

When people subscribe to Spotify, they're basically paying for no adverts rather than paying because they want to contribute money to the artists surely? That was certainly my reasoning when I had Spotify premium (although I still pay for downloads). Advertising covers the free users' streams and therefore there's no fundamental difference. There would be no logic whatsoever in taking away free streams from the chart.

I think premium subscribers streams are worth slightly more than ad-supported ones, but both should be counted to the chart.

 

The ads sorta pay for your subscription

You generate $$$ too

 

 

...and a record company giving away free singles or free merchandise was also paid for by free-advertising (if the singles charted the album/act gets free publicity) - it's still free for the music fan and paid for by advertising/more radio plays and actual paid-for sales once established. Free-music-users (with or without advertising) should not count towards a "sales" chart. They never did before streaming, and smart record companies getting round the rules found the rules changed to stop them.

 

Look, it honestly is NO different to someone buying a track and playing it a million times at home, or someone taping music onto casette/downloading free mp3's and playing it a million times at home, or a jukebox, or listening to the radio (playlists chosen by someone else that you passively listen to aka Spotify).

 

You either have all forms of consumption counted twoards the chart, or you make it sales/paid-for, the current mess is a mess because it's not logical. Again, as I said, anyone arguing that album tracks should qualify is flawed - how many times have us album-buyers bought the whole album for 3 or 4 tracks because it's cheaper, and the rest are pretty naff? The problem with Spotify playlists/double-counting is the naff ones are also getting charted on the back of the playlisting.

 

The main thing everyone seems to agree with is the current chart compilation system is flawed.

 

Re: my sales chart argument, well the fact that Ed Sheeran had 9 weeks on the sales chart, and a further 2 number ones, kinda proves that he is huge on sales and there's nothing wrong with the sales chart in reflecting that accurately, it isn't actually broke in reflecting popularity, all it doesn't do is reflect repeat weekly listening habits of the same fans....

 

 

Re: my sales chart argument, well the fact that Ed Sheeran had 9 weeks on the sales chart, and a further 2 number ones, kinda proves that he is huge on sales and there's nothing wrong with the sales chart in reflecting that accurately, it isn't actually broke in reflecting popularity, all it doesn't do is reflect repeat weekly listening habits of the same fans....

Let's look at that same sales chart, new songs from Kasabian and G-Eazy make the sales top 40 but only scrape the official top 100 because they're not popular on streaming. It would be a poor representation of popularity if those two songs did make the top 40 officially, just like it was a poor representation of popularity pre-streaming when boybands no one had ever heard of could get top 40 hits from fans multi buying, to give one example.

Let's look at that same sales chart, new songs from Kasabian and G-Eazy make the sales top 40 but only scrape the official top 100 because they're not popular on streaming. It would be a poor representation of popularity if those two songs did make the top 40 officially, just like it was a poor representation of popularity pre-streaming when boybands no one had ever heard of could get top 40 hits from fans multi buying, to give one example.

 

Isn't the reason they're not performing as well on streaming because they haven't been promoted to prominent playlists (i.e. they've not had the payola?)

 

I know it's a point that keeps being repeated, but that is essentially what this all boils down to...

Isn't the reason they're not performing as well on streaming because they haven't been promoted to prominent playlists (i.e. they've not had the payola?)

 

I know it's a point that keeps being repeated, but that is essentially what this all boils down to...

Well yes, neither have been pushed onto Spotify playlists, I can't speak for G-Eazy as I haven't heard the song but Kasabian's doesn't sound like the sort that would become a big streaming hit anyway. So even if they were on a big playlist they wouldn't be doing amazingly well.

Interesting that this week Take That will open with a 100,000+ selling album and will have one song from the album re-enter at the bottom end of the Top 100 yet other artists selling the same or less can clog up the Top 40 with album tracks.

 

Regardless of who you are/aren't a fan of this is a prime example of how screwed the charts are and how easy it is to manipulate if you can get your fan base into streaming for free rather than spending £12 on an album - stream for free and you could get 15 Top 40 hits and a #1 album.

Hmm, I think it more likely highlights how irrelevant Take That are beyond their rabid fanbase.

Edited March 30, 20178 yr by Doctor Blind

Hmm, I think it more likely highlights how irrelevant Take That are beyond their rabid fanbase.

 

But that's not the point is it?

 

Take That will sell 40,000+ more copies than Drake did in week 1 - he ended up with 20 Top 75 hits while Take That will probably end up with their lead single 'Giants' re-entering in the low 90s.

 

It's making streaming the superior format regardless of overall poularity - why should an act sell 50% less than another but achieve 20 hits just because sales cannot be separated between single streams and album plays properly and because they can engage their fan base in a free format that gives them more benefits than someone shelling out £12?

It just shows the difference in age between Drake and Take That's fanbases. Stereotypically, younger people will stream, hence Drake's success, while older people will buy the CD, explaining Take That.

It just shows the difference in age between Drake and Take That's fanbases. Stereotypically, younger people will stream, hence Drake's success, while older people will buy the CD, explaining Take That.

 

Which gives streaming an unfair advantage.

 

That's like going back in time when all physical formats were prominent and saying CD sales are worth triple vinyl sales - the way the charts are compiled shouldn't reflect the age or preferences of an artists fanbase.

 

On paper Drake looks like a major success with his recent album (And I'm not taking away anything from his status as a successful artist) but he achieved 20 hit singles and a #2 album on 50% less sales only because his fan base stream, I don't see how that can accurately reflect anything other than Drakes fans prefer to listen to music for free?