Again, what counts as an album listen?

It is definitely a grey area, especially in regards to people playing those tracks as part of a playlist.

 

I would say if someone has listened to at least 8 tracks of an album (or whatever the minimum eligible amount is) those individual track streams should be excluded from the singles chart. Doesn't make sense right now where they are basically included twice at the moment with the album and single streams.

They're doing the exact opposite to 'reflecting consumption' by pick and choosing songs to fall out faster to 'vary' up the chart, I get that we don't want songs clogging up th charts but by altering sales figures they're not reflecting the actual popularity of songs? Kinda defeating the point of the chart in the first place, they may as well just make it up?

 

I think the chart has always served two purposes - reflecting popularity and as a promotional tool that serves the music industry. The way the chart is at the moment it's not doing the second very well. I think this is a good compromise.

It is definitely a grey area, especially in regards to people playing those tracks as part of a playlist.

 

I would say if someone has listened to at least 8 tracks of an album (or whatever the minimum eligible amount is) those individual track streams should be excluded from the singles chart. Doesn't make sense right now where they are basically included twice at the moment with the album and single streams.

 

Well that's not going to be a problem now they've to all intents and purposes removed album tracks from the singles chart altogether.

Yeah, I'm really not a fan of this change either. It definitely defeats the point of a chart if they're omitting some of the most popular tracks in the country at that moment just because the charts are becoming dull to listen to. It will be nice for more tracks to have a chance of hitting the top 40 but it will destroy some chart runs (a bit how the US chart has awful chart runs because things completely drop out from the top 50) and they'll sort of feel like 'fake' hits anyway if they don't really deserve that position due to other songs having a disadvantage. I hope they run an old-style/real chart alongside it that we can look at too.

They're doing the exact opposite to 'reflecting consumption' by pick and choosing songs to fall out faster to 'vary' up the chart, I get that we don't want songs clogging up th charts but by altering sales figures they're not reflecting the actual popularity of songs? Kinda defeating the point of the chart in the first place, they may as well just make it up?

I don't agree, I think having the chart sped up and more varied is better for reflecting consumption. The consumers of Bieber, Ed and Drake are represented in the chart just about every week, as it should be as they are very popular, but it shouldn't be at the expense of up and coming songs, i.e. Hailee Steinfeld 'Most Girls' and ALMA 'Chasing Highs' which both narrowly missed the top 40 (so far).

What I'm curious to know is if a song increases in sales following two consecutive weeks of declining does it then have to decline for another 3 weeks or just 1? If its the former than acts could just discount a song to keep repeating the process

Edited June 26, 20177 yr by John-James

Yeah, I'm really not a fan of this change either. It definitely defeats the point of a chart if they're omitting some of the most popular tracks in the country at that moment just because the charts are becoming dull to listen to. It will be nice for more tracks to have a chance of hitting the top 40 but it will destroy some chart runs (a bit how the US chart has awful chart runs because things completely drop out from the top 50) and they'll sort of feel like 'fake' hits anyway if they don't really deserve that position due to other songs having a disadvantage. I hope they run an old-style/real chart alongside it that we can look at too.

the thing is, with all these records staying in the charts for ages, it's making it much much harder for new songs to break through. Radio may be more willing to support fresh songs if they're doing better in the chart.

I just don't see what's so difficult about just "ignoring" the tracks that have charted as an "album" track and just keep the singles as they are, when it comes to publishing the chart? :unsure: :lol:

 

I'm not sure if I like the "if they've been in the chart for 10 weeks and declined for 3 weeks etc.." rule though. In theory I like it, but when it comes to the big pop players like Katy/Little Mix etc.. Hmm.. I'm looking forward to seeing what effects it will have. I just hope the likes of 'Power' and other pure pop acts aren't affected too much more than they already are! :\

Yeah I am not sure I like the idea of a cap at 10 weeks. I think I'd feel happier about the rule if it didn't effect the top 10/20, so the cap only comes into effect after a song has left the top 10. I don't like the thought of a song's run cut shortly at #1 or top 10 because of the new rule.

What a mess. Ever since streaming has been introduced the chart has been getting more and more difficult to follow, to the point where it's impossible to compare the success of singles from even a couple of years apart or work out any sort of sales total. Actually these changes should be good for speeding up the chart, but as people have said if a song increases sales one week due to being discounted or performed somewhere, it will get a massive arbitrary spike in its chart run for several weeks even if not more popular. Also I'm guessing featured artists won't be counted towards the three track maximum, so somebody like Bieber could still have about 6 entries in the top 40. Like others have said, don't see how it's difficult to just remove album tracks rather than putting some limit on how many singles one can have. And as always when they change the rules, it's frustrating for the tracks that were denied high peaks due to the Ed Sheeran invasion this year, where under the new rules they would have performed better.

 

Sorry for ranting. All this is why I follow the sales chart rather than the official one. :P

Inside the Official Chart Company's Singles Chart revamp

by Mark Sutherland

June 26th 2017 at 11:37AM

 

The Official Charts Company has unveiled a huge revamp of the Singles Chart aimed at speeding up the Top 40 and boosting opportunities for labels to break new artists.

 

Following controversy over all 16 tracks from Ed Sheeran’s ÷ album charting in the Top 20, and multiple chart entries by the likes of Drake and Stormzy, there will now be a cap on the number of tracks by an artist that can feature in the Top 100.

 

Only the three most popular tracks by a lead artist will now be eligible for the chart, although songs on which a star is a featured artist will not count towards that total.

 

Meanwhile, after a record has racked up at least 10 weeks on the chart, any track which has declined for three consecutive weeks will see its streams:sales ratio change from 150:1 to 300:1, in an attempt to accelerate their disappearance from the chart.

 

“This is all about supporting new music,” Official Charts Company chief executive Martin Talbot told Music Week.

 

“We’re making sure the chart continues to be a place that reflects the consumption of new records in a fast-changing world.”

 

Talbot said that Official Charts research showed the changes would mean “potentially 10% more hits will be generated on an annual basis”.

 

The measures have been approved – after much debate over the detail – by major and independent record labels, retailers, digital music services and BBC Radio 1, which broadcasts the new chart every Friday.

 

“This is not a chart for album tracks; we want to remain the Official Singles Chart, for singles,” said Talbot. “We’re not removing singles from the chart.

 

The ratio change is designed to help unblock the top end of the charts from records that are well beyond their peak.

 

They’re prohibiting new records from getting exposure. It’s tougher than ever for new music and developing artists to break through, and this is us doing our bit.”

 

The changes will kick in this Friday (June 30), with the first chart under the new rules published on July 7.

 

Streaming now regularly accounts for over 85% of singles ‘sales’, a change that has seen the number of Top 40 hits decline by 40% between 2013 and 2016.

 

“This is about injecting energy back into the chart,” said Talbot, “While at the same time not taking away what it’s always been: a reflection of the consumers’ love for music.”

 

Interesting that the OCC boss has been quoted as saying this - I agree with him but surprised he said it as ultimately I thought the purpose of the charts was to record and reflect the 40 most popular songs in the UK on a weekly basis, not to act as a promotional facility that helps to give new artists a leg up - that was merely a nice side effect of their existence. That said, I'll be really interested to see the changes in the coming weeks and months and it will be nice to see more fresher songs in the top 40.

Finally the OCC is trying to right a wrong - a positive step forward for the UK Singles chart.

 

When all the old Christmas tracks reappear in November/December, will they all go under 300:1 or will they get 150:1 back to start off with?

Interesting that the OCC boss has been quoted as saying this - I agree with him but surprised he said it as ultimately I thought the purpose of the charts was to record and reflect the 40 most popular songs in the UK on a weekly basis, not to act as a promotional facility that helps to give new artists a leg up - that was merely a nice side effect of their existence. That said, I'll be really interested to see the changes in the coming weeks and months and it will be nice to see more fresher songs in the top 40.

 

That's a bit naive. It's always been primarily there for the music industry, not the public.

When all the old Christmas tracks reappear in November/December, will they all go under 300:1 or will they get 150:1 back to start off with?

 

Hopefully we'll get some clarity on this soon. I expect that if a single's sales increase by x% they get the cap removed, so Christmas singles, or tracks that have suddenly become genuinely more popular again (like One Last Time) aren't unfairly kept down.

Hopefully we'll get some clarity on this soon. I expect that if a single's sales increase by x% they get the cap removed, so Christmas singles, or tracks that have suddenly become genuinely more popular again (like One Last Time) aren't unfairly kept down.

Tbf, I think instances like Ariana's will be fine, coz she re-released it in 2017 with an individual release (she released a "Tribute to Manchester" version, seperately) so I imagine it'll be classed as a new song?

When all the old Christmas tracks reappear in November/December, will they all go under 300:1 or will they get 150:1 back to start off with?

I'd presume it would be 150:1 seeing as they are rapidly increasing their sales percentage.

 

But that is another thing, what are the OCC going to do to prevent nearly the entire top 40 from being all Christmas tracks? We saw the start of it last year where songs that normally wouldn't go near the top 40 were propped up by background Spotify playlist listening on Christmas Day.

That's a bit naive. It's always been primarily there for the music industry, not the public.

 

I know that and I agree with their way of thinking.

 

The thing about it that I found funny is that loads of people from Buzzjack over the last year (especially when the Ed invasion happened) commented that the chart's purpose is 'solely to reflect the biggest selling singles in the land', and I always believed otherwise so it's interesting to see a statement straight from the horse's mouth that this is in fact not their sole purpose at all!

 

My original post was poorly worded - I meant to say "I thought the purpose of the charts was [supposed to be] to record and reflect the 40 most popular songs in the UK on a weekly basis [as we have been led to believe by half of Buzzjack]"

 

Interested to see what James Masterton thinks of this as he didn't seem to think the Ed and other album invasions were a particular issue.

Edited June 26, 20177 yr by gooddelta

I know that and I agree with their way of thinking.

 

The thing about it that I found funny is that loads of people from Buzzjack over the last year have commented that the chart's purpose is 'solely to reflect the biggest selling singles in the land', and I always believed otherwise so it's interesting to see a statement straight from the horse's mouth that this is in fact not their sole purpose at all!

I guess its because, at the end of the day, they're a business. With little change in the charts, there's going to be less interest in them and, say things like music TV channels will give less focus to it.

I LOVE this idea. It means that songs are a lot more likely to debut in the top 40, and we could genuinely have weeks where the chart is similar to the pre-streaming era! It's definitely the best move (imo) to combat the ever-increasing streaming.

 

Also, this means a faster #1 turnover, more newies in the top 40 every week - and a more exciting and diverse chart in general :cheer: