Yes for replacing the daily cap with a lifetime cap, every user gets a certain amount of streams that contribute to the sales of a track, whether they do so all in one day or very casually over several months.

So far, AIWFCIY has spent two weeks at #1 and LC one week. And because they are on ACR, they are not guaranteed to be at #1 anyway this year with Ed/Elton and LadBaby releasing. Either of them might get a week if lucky.

 

I still think in the big picture, the problem isn't as huge as some of you see it.

 

I'm sure you'll change your tune in 5 years if Ed/Elton ends up being big and every year it ends up top 3 or getting a week at number 1 and in the chart for another 6 weeks.

a permanent cap would have definitely been a better idea than ACR in the first place

 

Yes for replacing the daily cap with a lifetime cap, every user gets a certain amount of streams that contribute to the sales of a track, whether they do so all in one day or very casually over several months.

 

That's how streaming should have been done from the start. Sadly the OCC are too far down this rabit hole now to go back as they A love throwing around 'new' chart records and B would inevitably have to look at scaling back some of the ridiculous sales songs have gotten to this point in the streaming era. Good luck with them taking all those million and plat singles off Little Mix, Bieber etc I'm sure that would go down well with fans.

How could a lifetime cap be implemented though? Per account? Then people would just create new accounts. Talking about free here, obviously very few would have multiple paid-for accounts.

a permanent cap would have definitely been a better idea than ACR in the first place

 

Agreed ACR has clearly failed to do what it set out to do, i'd argue the only part of the current rules that has worked as intended is the three track rule which clearly means album bombs can't happen. Obviously we can't know for certain but I think a permanent streaming cap per user would have worked a lot better all along.

I think ACR has very much succeeded in what it set out to do - halving the streaming figures of older hits can't really fail. It wasn't meant to rid the charts of older songs, just bump them down. When it comes to the Christmas songs, they're just streamed in such huge volumes that ACR's effect is weakened.

How could a lifetime cap be implemented though? Per account? Then people would just create new accounts. Talking about free here, obviously very few would have multiple paid-for accounts.

 

That's true and could potentially cause an issue. I think the different ratios for free and paid for accounts would help somewhat with that though, perhaps they could widen the gap there if they thought some large scale multi-account manipulation was going on.

That's how streaming should have been done from the start. Sadly the OCC are too far down this rabit hole now to go back as they A love throwing around 'new' chart records and B would inevitably have to look at scaling back some of the ridiculous sales songs have gotten to this point in the streaming era. Good luck with them taking all those million and plat singles off Little Mix, Bieber etc I'm sure that would go down well with fans.

Is there a valid problem with songs accumulating huge sales numbers that doesn't boil down to 'I'm mad because old music better'? If anything streaming is the great equaliser because anything (that's available online) can accumulate these long term numbers and over time*, it's actually the older songs that set the insurmountable amounts because they're *always* gaining. Bohemian Rhapsody & Wonderwall are slowly ascending the ranks of the most streamed songs ever, and they're both multiple times as old as Spotify itself.

 

*historical pure sales numbers are so often defined by the differing market strength of different eras as is

I think ACR has very much succeeded in what it set out to do - halving the streaming figures of older hits can't really fail. It wasn't meant to rid the charts of older songs, just bump them down. When it comes to the Christmas songs, they're just streamed in such huge volumes that ACR's effect is weakened.

 

I thought as well as the Christmas songs, part of its more general aim was to make the charts a little more fast paced and reduce the amount of long running #1s and static Top 10s etc... yeah that's happened somewhat but not to a great degree. Maybe its just me but I feel like changing the whole way that sales are calculated from streaming would seem like a more straightforward and less manipulative way of achieving that as well. I don't want the charts to be completely ridded of songs older than X date by default or for the pendulum to swing too far the other way and have 40+ low-selling #1s a year but I do think it would be a good idea to look at an alternative to ACR/how to calculate sales from streaming.

Charts should be a reflection of the most listened to songs

Having a rule change on a timescale that's divisible by whole years, like exactly 3 years, might make it more likely that a song (more likely perhaps a Xmas song), could have an unusual chart run owing to an automatic rule change activation. I would prefer it if SCR kicked in after say 150 or 180 weeks or something.

 

Also, if they did something like an ACR reset if a song had let's say 60 consecutive weeks absent from the top 40, I think that would be cool B-)

I like Xmas songs anyway

 

 

 

 

 

 

Charts should be a reflection of the most listened to songs

 

I agree that ideally the charts should be free of any artificial manipulation of the data. But its always been a sales chart and even now charts 'equivalent sales from streaming'. Changing the way those sales are calculated seems fair game to me, it isn't as if sales haven't been calculated differently in different eras in the past. I wouldn't be bothered if they implemented that and then scrapped all the other rules that alter the way things chart (even the three-track rule), but maybe there's something i'm missing that would be impractical with that.

Edited November 30, 20213 yr by Dot Branning

What is the point of having a fake chart arbitrarily keeping some things out?

 

My view is that if they really want to have a chart that moves like the 1990s sales charts did, they should simply pick a new metric to be their flagship radio chart, instead of coming up with convoluted rules to exclude things that are actually selling, or streaming, from being eligible.

Is there a valid problem with songs accumulating huge sales numbers that doesn't boil down to 'I'm mad because old music better'? If anything streaming is the great equaliser because anything (that's available online) can accumulate these long term numbers and over time*, it's actually the older songs that set the insurmountable amounts because they're *always* gaining. Bohemian Rhapsody & Wonderwall are slowly ascending the ranks of the most streamed songs ever, and they're both multiple times as old as Spotify itself.

 

*historical pure sales numbers are so often defined by the differing market strength of different eras as is

 

Yes because it most definetly isn't a level playing field for most older vs newer songs. Let's take Wannabe, I think no one could ever argue that a girl group song has ever had the same impact or is as recognisable. Yet it seems destined to fall behind Shout out to my Ex and Black Magic eventually. I think even the biggest Little Mix fans would accept neither of those 2 songs have the impact, longevity and were anywhere near as big hits as Wannabe but streaming will always favour newer songs.

 

You give Wonderwall and Bohemian Rhapsody as examples but they are all time great songs and they aren't going to be close to Shape of you in sales the way it's going.

 

Not all older songs are better obviously but the way streaming has been calculated has made it very skewed towards newer hits/songs and thats very obvious when you look at the list of 'million selling' singles now which is barely a recognisable milestone any more.

Edited November 30, 20213 yr by sammy01

Yes because it most definetly isn't a level playing field for most older vs newer songs. Let's take Wannabe, I think no one could ever argue that a girl group song has ever had the same impact or is as recognisable. Yet it seems destined to fall behind Shout out to my Ex and Black Magic eventually. I think even the biggest Little Mix fans would accept neither of those 2 songs have the impact, longevity and were anywhere near as big hits as Wannabe but streaming will always favour newer songs.

 

You give Wonderwall and Bohemian Rhapsody as examples but they are all time great songs and they aren't going to be close to Shape of you in sales the way it's going.

 

Not all older songs are better obviously but the way streaming has been calculated has made it very skewed towards newer hits/songs and thats very obvious when you look at the list of 'million selling' singles now which is barely a recognisable milestone any more.

I think what you'll see over time is that the streaming demographic is slowly skewing older and older, over time more and more old songs are becoming seemingly permanent staples and only a select few new hits last the distance. As for Spice Girls vs. Little Mix, I don't think we can use bestowed reverence as a yardstick. The charts have always favoured all manner of random material that's merely a time capsule in hindsight, while classics can go through with monster sales or also minute sales. The charts are there to tell us what people are actually buying/listening to as an exact yardstick. You can spend all day mentally admiring Adele's new album but unless you're actively buying/listening to it, that's none of the chart's business. If there is a problem to be had with streaming it's that it's strongly influenced by what has found its way into people's personal playlists to get repeated plays, but at the end of the day, they are listening to that material over material that's not playlisted, and that's what the chart's here to tell us.

 

But still you have to look at the *really* long term. Shape Of You is just shy of 5 years old, Bohemian Rhapsody is over 45 years old, and yet today on Spotify they posted roughly the same number on the global chart. I hate to subscribe to the ultra-boomer take of 'music that's still remembered half a century later is good music'*, but either Shape Of You is going to fall to the wayside and drop its margin over Queen every day for the rest of time until they trade ranks, or it'll stay above them and at some point we just have to say that its position is justified by its extended popularity (mind you Blinding Lights will probably be #1 on Spotify in early 2023).

 

*Or for that matter, insinuating that my own childhood nostalgia invalidates that of someone younger than me, who may well be seeing recent releases as the most important music in their life, and '90s/'00s/etc music is just crappy old music.

Edited November 30, 20213 yr by Dircadirca

Absolutely not. The Charts should reflect whatever the public have consumed in any given week. In fact, I would remove ACR altogether - every track should be treated equally. It is not the job of the Charts to be “interesting” but rather to fairly and accurately reflect what has been happening in the UK over the previous 7 days.

No, if people are buying and streaming them they should be in the charts...same as every other old song...are you suggesting different rules for Christmas songs than it is for random old songs?