this occ boss person is pretty deluded if he 1) calls the Ed tracks "singles", all of them, and 2) thinks people are streaming those singles, not the album, and there's no double counting?

Ffs they are not singles they are album tracks and double counting is incorporated. :banghead:

 

the journalist should have been more pushy and point that

if somebody is very successful in albums it should show in the album charts

not in the single charts

Um, I get what the guy was trying to say. The streams are double counted since the same streams are used for both charts, but they don't care since both charts measure different things. One is for the popularity of the individual tracks and one for the popularity of the album as a whole. They don't see an issue for the singles chart if people stream the whole album from start to finish since they count each individual stream as separate.

 

Oh and in this day and age, every single album track can be considered 'a single'. Songs don't have to be annointed from the labels, be pushed to radio or have a music video.

The OCC are putting their heads in the sand; they f**ked up royally and they've killed the UK singles chart.

 

This will happen time and time again now and any special achievement will now become the norm. I remember in 1985 when Madonna held the Number 1 and 2 position and it was a massive deal (I can only imagine how she would have dominated in 1986 if this stupid current system had been in play then). The fact is Ed is popular right now, but this chart success is a total joke and I don't recognise it, it's album tracks that shouldn't be counted. End of.

 

Official singles only should chart.

 

 

all songs should count if they do enough, singles or not

problem is his songs are doing so amazingly thanks to album streams

this occ boss person is pretty deluded if he 1) calls the Ed tracks "singles", all of them, and 2) thinks people are streaming those singles, not the album, and there's no double counting?

Is this not just arguing over semantics? :P The word single is used flippantly from him, which is appropriate really because the public don't care what is and isn't a single when they can download or buy any song they want. Anything is a single these days technically.

Yeah, the songs may not fit the 1950s definition of a single but even if they owe much of their current success to the album the fact is that they can be and to some extent are being consumed singly. Which is why they're not all being streamed equally.

sure they have some individual streams but sure they have some album streams added too

I'm just saying they would chart lower, not that they wouldn't chart

Personally, I think they need to change something and it's the same change I wanted from the start. They should either change it so each user can only stream a song to the equivalent of 1 'paid for' sale - so only your first 150 plays can go towards the chart (which - to be fair - might not change much because who listens to a song more than 150 times?) or they should count how many users listened to each track rather than how many times it was played. I think the first one would be harder to implement, but the second option should work if they divide the total by 100/150.

 

In an ideal world they would just make the sales chart the official chart and this combined version the alternate chart on the side. It would sort out the 'total sales' issue with songs. Even the OCC can't always bring themselves to use streaming data when they give updated sales totals etc.

perhaps if it was one user per song per week that counted, that would take out people putting Ed's album on repeat all week, but mostly it would just have the effect of reducing every song's streaming total by roughly the same amount.

 

(also I have listened to a few songs more than 150 times :ph34r: most recently 'This Girl' which I've listened to 152 times)

However, speaking to Music Week, Official Charts Company chief executive Martin Talbot was quick to quash any concerns that the singles chart model may be broken.

 

“[÷]is a massive record,” he said. “There’s only been two albums in recent years that have been anywhere near this, Adele’s 25 and Oasis’ Be Here Now. There are so few records that have been of this scale that what we are seeing isn’t typical. We should be celebrating the fact that Ed Sheeran has followed Stormzy and Rag’N’Bone Man in doing so well on the chart. This time last year we were bemoaning the fact it was so difficult to break British talent, but we are having a bit of a purple patch at the moment.”

 

While ÷ may well be a one-off, it’s likely that this trend will continue to develop with every album release from a superstar artist. Still, Talbot insists that the company will not rush into taking any drastic measures, but will continue to monitor the evolution of the charts and the impact of streaming upon them.

 

“We’ll review the methodology and discuss it internally and with the industry as we always do," he said. "We are constantly evolving the chart rules because the industry is constantly evolving.”

 

Talbot also addressed any concerns that streams that appeared on both charts were being ‘double counted’.

 

“The two charts reflect different things,” he said. “The fact Ed Sheeran has got so many singles in the Top 20 is a reflection of the fact that people are listening to those singles, and they are also buying those singles. If none of these singles were being downloaded you could argue that this is just a reflection of album consumption, but clearly people are buying these tracks as well. [The tracks] are not getting twice the number of sales.”

 

At present, it looks like little will change in the way that the singles chart is compiled, and few could argue that Sheeran’s ÷ is anything but highly unusual. But with huge album releases expected later this year from the likes of Katy Perry, Sam Smith, Harry Styles and Taylor Swift, it’s unlikely this issue is going to disappear…

 

I think Talbot is being dishonest to the public. The album tracks are not singles PERIOD so for him to say "The fact Ed Sheeran has got so many singles in the Top 20 is a reflection of the fact that people are listening to those singles, and they are also buying those singles" is a load of nonsense. He praised Sheeran's album sales - the highest since Adele and Oasis - but sees no problem in consumers streaming the tracks from the album and they're given singles-status. It's absolute nonsense, unfair, and he's sticking his two fingers up at chart fans and really saying: "you lot must be morons if you believe what I just said!"

The format is completely flawed and it's no surprise the OCC defend it. If Talbot said "the current situation is unacceptable, we're changing the rules in April" it would mean he was responsible for the unacceptable situation.It's like Jeremy Hunt saying "NHS waiting times are too long, too unacceptable" but he doesn't add "I think I should do something about it or resign." And Talbot is no different. Talbot doesn't see any problem in artists having multiple singles in the chart, he doesn't care that FREE streams add to the overall sales figures, he doesn't care about a slow, often stagnant chart.

 

If Sheeran's album tracks remain in the top 20/40 for the next three months or so - thereby limiting new 'singles', new entries - I think Talbot should resign.

Edited March 13, 20178 yr by soundman

I don't know how its difficult to grasp, I would have thought album tracks are album tracks that belong in the album chart, if they are singles than do away with the album chart, and instead of calling The Official Singles Chart, re-brand it to the Official Track Chart with everything thrown into it, including the iamspamspamamisink. Its hardly rocket science to figure it out.

 

 

Just imagine Katy Perry, Justin Bieber, Drake releasing new albums in the same week, same day, the Singles Top 40 chart are completely awashed with 3 artists, which most likely won't happen, bearing in mind its worth thinking about.

 

 

I bet OCC are reading this topic :D ha

The problem is that his singles got so high and so many cos of double counting

He would not have had 16 tracks in the top 19

If album streams had been properly allocated

 

Free streams should count

Basically the ads you are forced to listen

pay for you

So you generate the same revenue

Than a subscribed user

 

Using that argument then Youtube videos should also count towards the chart....

 

 

Using that argument then Youtube videos should also count towards the chart....

 

And if they decide to add Airplay they will kill it.

 

I don't know how its difficult to grasp, I would have thought album tracks are album tracks that belong in the album chart, if they are singles than do away with the album chart, and instead of calling The Official Singles Chart, re-brand it to the Official Track Chart with everything thrown into it, including the iamspamspamamisink. Its hardly rocket science to figure it out.

Just imagine Katy Perry, Justin Bieber, Drake releasing new albums in the same week, same day, the Singles Top 40 chart are completely awashed with 3 artists, which most likely won't happen, bearing in mind its worth thinking about.

Album tracks have been included in the singles chart for years. I get what the OCC is saying by that if you can buy a track and stream it then it may as well be considered a single.

 

Banning so called non-singles is not the way forward. We just need the OCC to count streams of singular tracks and streams of albums separately to lessen the impact of album tracks.

 

Let's also remember that 'Divide' is an anomaly. Albums from other big artists don't have half the impact, except perhaps Justin Bieber.

YouTube videos aren't audio streaming though, it's a video sharing site, it's not the same as the likes of Spotify or Apple Music.

Using that argument then Youtube videos should also count towards the chart....

 

what? you know you can block those YT ads and they don't show anymore,

that's what everybody I know does

no one is forced to sit thru those ads

so not the same at all

and agree Bieber is the only one who could do a Divide,

Katy Perry certainly not

Ffs they are not singles they are album tracks and double counting is incorporated. :banghead:

 

too right. if the album has been streamed as a whole it's an album "sale" not 16 single "sales". If we are going down that route then I INSIST that every CD album track is also counted as a single sale for every track. That would have meant the entire top 12 was RagnBone Man 3 weeks ago. The chart rules are PATHETIC and inconsistent, it's like they are bending over backwards to allow streaming companies to dictate what constitutes a singles chart, when they have yet to make a profit!

 

Downloads won't disappear either. As soon as they realise they cant make a profit from ad-related income (and these free-listens stop contributing towards the chart) music fans will have a clear choice: you pay for the tracks to own, or you rent access to music monthly.

 

I propse that in that scenario, the only realistic way to return the chart to what it has always been (to reflect what people BUY, not how many times they play what they buy) is to give one whole sale towards the very first play on any track rented with actual cash per person and no more no matter how many times they play it thereafter. It's not going to be strictly accurate, inasmuch as curiosity will count as a sale too as it does at the moment, but at least it will freshen up the charts as it will require NEW listeners to keep a track at 1 for 15 weeks, not the same ones over and over again. I would also ban playlist sales unless they are specifically chosen by the renter.

 

Just think, no more xmas invasions of the same songs in the same order each year as the same people stream the same playlist records. Hooray! Actual sellers like leona Lewis would feature higher. Hooray! No more album invasions of the singles chart beyond week one, which would be in any case downsized in influence. Hooray!