#Bring back Mark Goodier

 

Or

 

Play all of the top 40.

 

40-10 played with a bit of information on artists or singles which are huge climbers and new entries. Before top 10 announce new releases, played 10-3 (not 10-2) to make it more interesting for suspense and then played the number 2 then quick final rundown 40-2 with pick of the pops theme and then play 1 after calling the artist. And btw after 31 is played rundown of 40-31, and same for 30-21, 20-11, Like they used to do. And rundown of albums after number 21 and nothing I might have missed out, maybe with a bit of a modern twist

Edited March 29, 20187 yr by Gail Martin

Whilst the New Music Friday initiative was rolled-out globally, I don't think it was the case that every chart-compiling nation chose to adjust their survey week to suit it. I haven't revisited the specific arrangements being made by different countries in 2015, but I seem to remember that while each made some adjustment for it in terms of compilation/publication/broadcast dates etc, the UK was one of the few that opted to go for the split-calendar week of Friday to Thursday, and it was essentially because labels wanted to see a full week's sales/streams as that would maximise - or bottom-out depending on how you look at it - their new releases' initial chart positions. As DanG observed above, this soon became largely-irrelevant as the rapid take-up of streaming over sales has meant that it is far-harder to register a peak position, especially in the Top 10, in the maiden week of release. The nature of streaming currently is that bar key releases from the most major and keenly-anticipated acts like Bieber or Drake, tracks build to a peak, less-so than in the sales sector. As streaming is now over 93% of the combined market, inevitably it is now more about what position your single can attain on the combined chart in a month, two months or maybe even more following release, if labels are patient enough to care. Personally I think that's a preferable scenario to the instant quick-fix-then-out era of c.1995-2005, but the downside has been excessive stagnation as while the climbs to chart peaks are more steady - and I'd say more exciting as they're less-easy to predict - the declines from peaks are incredibly long and drawn-out, tapering across what can be several months even with ACR now in play for published positions. The ideal would be to keep the culture of interesting climbs up the ladder, but accelerate the retreats downwards. But that would mean changing the chart by imposing even more arbitrary exclusions/restrictions, which would only render it even more artificial than now. No; instead the market will just have to change and evolve over time. It always has, for better and worse, and so it's fair to say the shape of things in the late 2010s probably won't be the trends we'll be witnessing in the late 2020s.

 

Whether the chart show will ever properly or seriously reflect whatever is in store in future however, I rather doubt. Indeed, will it still exist at all in ten years' time?

My eyes...

My eyes...

What about them? You're not supposed to get pudding in them? Why would you change your eyes about the chart show? :lol:

In the past I would've changed it by playing the new entires in the top 75 and missing out the long-running top 40s, but with ACR it might not be necessary, I'm not sure.