Why?

 

The point of the chart is to record what people are listening to. That's literally why it exists.

 

All of these measures to artificially distort that in order to privilege 'new' songs in order to create a pre-00s style top 40 of constantly shifting tracks is just bizarre and like someone's retro control fantasy.

 

It's like trying to block any and all reruns over a certain age from the tv schedule, even if that means due to that you'll be showing any old actually unpopular crap.

The answer to the thread title is: No.

 

The charts are here to represent popularity.

 

Imagine having a #1 that wasn’t even in the top 20 for sales or streams.

passive playlisting has ruined the charts. It's not representative of what people choose to hear, only the TYPE of things people choose to hear. It's no different from me choosing to listen to radio 2, yet that doesnt count towards the charts.

 

Music charts should reflect what people are passionate about, not what they don't find offensive enough to bother to turn off. If they buy it that shows they are passionate about it. Personal playlists should be the only sort to contribute towards chart places, and album plays should be albums only. It's not 2 plays. It's one play - either the entire album was played or it was individual tracks played. It's not both. This nonsense about 80% of tracks getting a singles play = an album sale as well is just desperate marketing to inflate album "sales". Half the streaming population playing a new album week one is not a reflection of it's popularity, it's a reflection of curiosity about it. If week 2 plays are not as big, it's fair to say that it's not actually as popular or people would have kept playing it.

Oh come on. Most people aren't that 'passionate' about songs they like. Also the absolute majority of songs that get popular are the definition of inoffensive. So I wouldn't use that argument because it might undermine the entire system.

 

Oh and the 80% rule makes sense because not everyone actually plays albums in their entirety. For example, if you're too excited you might want to skip old singles you've already heard. I do that all the time. I'm more than passionate about that album but my streams won't count even though I have heard the entire album. Doesn't quite sound right.

To build on that; people used to buy singles just because they thought the act was attractive.

 

I've often held that if the chart seriously wants to be a top 40 of new tracks, it should simply be that the Singles Sales Chart is what continues to count as the Official chart and be on the radio, and a version of the chart that includes streaming should also be published on the website, rather than the Frankenstein vice versa approach they're currently taking with it, in which all kinds of new rules are brought in every year to discount streaming's impact while still semi including it, but not as a true picture of its impact.

 

We are now in the situation on the 'official' chart where all of the below count equally as one 'sale':

One sale of a single on itunes

100 plays of a song on audio streaming

100 plays of a video on youtube in which that song is the soundtrack

[How do TikTok and Insta songs count?]

300 plays of a song on audio streaming

300 plays of a video on youtube

 

Does that not seem ridiculous to anyone else?

Alsooo according to this logic if an album track that wasn't released as a 'single' anywhere and is available as part of the album gets off and becomes big overnight then it will not be eligible to chart as an individual song. Creates another problem instead of solving the current ones. The singles vs album tracks distinction is dead and buried.

 

A unit of something can be defined as both sum of its parts and as a unit.

Edited December 9, 20204 yr by b

Imagine having a #1 that wasn’t even in the top 20 for sales or streams.

 

River teas :heehee:

 

Otherwise all I can say is maybe up the limit from 30 seconds? (If that's still the case) - Sometimes when a song comes on by the time I can get on my phone to change it 30 seconds has already passed or I decide after that time whether I actually like it or not. By that time I've already given it a 'stream'

Audiences aren’t passive. People can skip songs they don’t want to listen to.

 

Yeah, but only within the first 30 seconds. I can't tell you the amount of times I've accidentally given a "stream" to a song I hate because I wasn't paying enough attention to skip it within the first 30 seconds.

Everyone:

 

Alexa play Christmas music.

*river starts playing*

*31 seconds later*

Alexa skip this one

 

River on Friday: *#1*

Yeah, but only within the first 30 seconds. I can't tell you the amount of times I've accidentally given a "stream" to a song I hate because I wasn't paying enough attention to skip it within the first 30 seconds.

 

But then you were listening to something that included the song? It’s just the nature of streaming and we’re bound to stream a song we didn’t mean to. Can’t control that. I make my own playlist to only listen to music I want to.

i would just like playlist streams banned so unfair on artists that dont make the big playlists

As I’ve said previously, I think this is by far the best solution. And I think the cap should be something VERY LOW, like 10 streams - otherwise it wouldn’t solve the problem. I don’t know how many times the GP listen to songs, but surely once you’ve played a song 10 times, you can tell if you like it or not. Lots of people will reach that point in the first few weeks, but others may take a long time, leading to a gradual decline for non-fanbase acts. The streaming chart can track which old songs are constantly being listened to...

Still the only solution (in my eyes).

 

Albums is more tricky, but I think you need to be invested enough to listen to an album; so one COMPLETE stream of a whole album should count to the albums chart.

 

Actually agree with Popchartfreak: because of playlist domination, streaming's current system does not measure newly popular tracks (which is what the chart has historically measured). The radio airplay chart has always catered for people who have an idea of what they want to hear, but aren't *that* invested in the songs, much like the streaming chart should be - if people find a song offensive enough, they switch over the station or skip. Small number (but not too small that all passive/curiosity plays count) of chart contributing, lifetime, streams is the solution IMO.

ACR is bad enough as it is, doubling it would be a disaster :puke2:

 

 

I think the current system works as a good halfway point between the chart being a promotional tool for new music + artists, and representing true popularity of a song. ACR doesn't stop songs from appearing in the chart, it just bumps them down a bit to allow new music to get greater exposure. It keeps the turnover higher and allows new artists to more easily score a higher charting hit. From this position I get why the Christmas songs are on ACR, as there's an attempt to still reflect new music in the chart but it's also not ignoring what people are genuinely, truly listening to. Any attempt to remove them, or add "double ACR" would make a far bigger mockery of the chart than the current ACR does (and the chart has been SO much better in my opinion since ACR came in, ugly chart runs are a tiny price to pay)

I agreed with the 10-play cap back in 2018 and I still agree with it now, it feels like the best way to have a chart that actually reflects the consumption of new music in a way similar to when the chart was sales-only. Obviously none of us actually have that chart so there may be a reason the OCC haven't implemented it (it might be a complete mess for all we know) but it seems like the most logical approach.

 

(I do think ACR itself is better than no rules at all, some of the best charting songs have appeared in the lower echelons of the Top 40 and I really couldn't be done with the chart being like it was in 2016)

At best it would be a temporary solution until a few years later when things get even ''worse'' and double ACR isn't enough. ACR hasn't even existed 4 years yet.

The chart is awful at the moment with way too many Christmas songs imo but if that's what people are streaming then that's just the way it is. Manipulating the chart further with double ACR just seems wrong.

Xmas songs are "problem" only 5 weeks/year. Not really worth of creating new rules.

I think Popchart and Joseph two points sum it up for me. It will never reflect what the old charts used to but the current rules try to find a balance in an impossible situation.

People think the old way charts were compiled actually represented the reality. But not everyone could afford to buy music they liked. These days even a free Youtube stream contributes to the chart so streaming is much more inclusive in general.

 

Perhaps it’s not the charts that changed due to the new rules but maybe they are now actually much more accurate than before.

I'm not sure if I like ACR or not.

 

I can see the potential for an interesting top 40 chart run, if a Xmas song's "3rd birthday" is just before Xmas.