We still have less than 5 cases, when #1 song wasn't the most popular during the week, don't we? I don't know about Christmas...

Oh much more than 5 I think - there was a thread somewhere?

http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=235185

 

14 from July 2017 to June 2020 … and then there’s all the errors every week further down the chart

It's happened 22 times and 11 songs have gained a #1 peak as a result. It doesn't bother me very much on the whole when these songs are still hugely popular and for the chart as a brand it's far more interesting to have a new #1 at the top than week 86 for a long runner.

Yeah I think this is where there’s a divide sadly 😂😂😘

 

For me, at least, those 11 chart toppers don’t deserve to be called #1s, and I would far rather have an accurate chart than an interesting one.

 

But let’s agree to disagree :)

So let me make sure I've understood this thread: The charts are broken because the Alexa Christmas songs outperform popular Christmas songs because ACR is too strong, and at the same time the charts are broken because a popular song is at the lofty height of #23 this week because ACR isn't strong enough...

 

I'm going out for some fresh air now.

 

Not quite! If something happens in the chart that a poster doesn't like (eg an artist they don't like gets to number 1) it's because the artist is in cahoots with the OCC and the whole thing is rigged. Nothing is ever said if the opposite were to happen.

 

Maybe, if someone bidded for the rights to the chart.

For me, at least, those 11 chart toppers don’t deserve to be called #1s, and I would far rather have an accurate chart than an interesting one.

I did agree with you 18 months ago - and then I properly learned what the chart would look like without any extra rules and now I’m inclined to think that the OCC have got the balance about right. Every time this subject comes up there’s a group of people saying there should be no different weightings and another group saying older songs should be excluded entirely or that there should be multiple ACR levels. What we have is a compromise between those. There are only 3 statuses a song can have - SCR, ACR or starred out. It’s still transparent enough that you can understand what’s actually going on if you really want.

 

I don’t think it’s so much about the charts being “interesting” but more that historically we’ve always measured success based on getting a “Number 1”, a “Top 10” or a “Top 40” and so on. The number of songs achieving those milestones in the streaming age is already much lower than it was in the past even with ACR. Without ACR almost anything peaking low Top 10 would not be a Top 10. Anything peaking in the 30s wouldn’t be a Top 40 hit. When you get further down it becomes much worse - the #100 on SCR would probably be around #300 without because there are literally hundreds of old songs that ACR handicaps just enough to keep them out. Maybe the problem is that we need to redefine our measure of success so Top 20 is the new Top 10, ask Radio 1 to count down the Top 100 and just play fresh songs, and publish a much longer chart so new songs get a proper look in. But I suspect that for the casual observer the existing solution, much as it rankles with me as a purist, is preferable overall.

 

 

It's happened 22 times and 11 songs have gained a #1 peak as a result. It doesn't bother me very much on the whole when these songs are still hugely popular and for the chart as a brand it's far more interesting to have a new #1 at the top than week 86 for a long runner.

 

Following the link, and counting the ones highlighted in blue, I make it 24 times up to 10/02/2022, unless I am misunderstanding something.

Following the link, and counting the ones highlighted in blue, I make it 24 times up to 10/02/2022, unless I am misunderstanding something.

Which means I must have miscounted :magic:

and you know that week one "sales" are not just people playing it for a week out of curiosity, as opposed to any actual LOVE of the tracks (witness them all plummeting the following week in some cases). Curiosity, passive playlists and obsessive replaying were never factors in charts until streaming.

 

I bought new physical singles a lot in the noughties, and often bought things from the new entries stand out of pure curiousity, with the discounted week 1 price making me more likely to do so, and whilst they sometimes turned out to be good singles that I continued to play it wasn't uncommon for me to buy something in week 1 then play it once and file it away in my collection and not play it again, so I do think that week 1 curiousity cionsumption was already a factor in the physical charts, at least once front loading of releases with a heavily discounted week 1 price was an established marketing practice. It's also worth remembering that entering high and then plummeting in week 2 was a very familiar chart behaviour back in the late nineties and early noughties due to the frontloading, which itself was probably stimulating at least some amount of curiousity purchases.

Following the link, and counting the ones highlighted in blue, I make it 24 times up to 10/02/2022, unless I am misunderstanding something.

Yes, Last Christmas lost 3 weeks at #1 due to ACR rather than just 1 so that's possibly why.

Who are you proposing is going to take the 'rights' away from them...? :lol: It's not a government service lol

 

There are still 'rights' of some sort to it though aren't there? Or at least there used to be. BMRB had the rights or contract from 1969-1982, and Gallup from 1983-Feb 1994, with the current incumbent (originally under the name Chart Information Network, and with actual data compilation handled by a third party, Millward Brown) having been in place since then.

Yes, Last Christmas lost 3 weeks at #1 due to ACR rather than just 1 so that's possibly why.

Well spotted though that's not why I miscounted, I just missed a couple of the blue highlighted songs going down :kink:

It’s greater exposure for new artists and fresh songs that is unwarranted though. I know WHY the OCC is doing this, particularly from a commercial perspective, but I just think they’re wrong as the charts they are producing are false.

 

The Singles chart has never been solely about accurately reflecting musical taste by numbers, it has always also been a promotional tool to sell or consume more music. So in the past records were deleted such as "love is all around" in 1994 or further down the charts, older songs were removed between 75-100 I believe. As I pointed out a few weeks ago, it is preferable for a new artist to gain a top 100 foothold and who knows from that exposure, gain a following than Babyshark have its 70th week on the chart for example. And the less interest there is from the general pubic about the charts then it will lead to its further decline and demise.

There are still 'rights' of some sort to it though aren't there? Or at least there used to be. BMRB had the rights or contract from 1969-1982, and Gallup from 1983-Feb 1994, with the current incumbent (originally under the name Chart Information Network, and with actual data compilation handled by a third party, Millward Brown) having been in place since then.

 

I mean sure, I guess my post was being a little bit flippant (note to self for about the 10th time that I'm not allowed to make lighthearted posts in this forum lest I be accused of mocking people), of course the BPI could decide to give the contract to a different company to run the charts (however that works) if they wanted to. But if they ever did it would presumably be for some financial reason and not because there's a higher power that's 'not impressed' by 'Alexa scams' or disagreeing with ACR rules or whatever, hence I think the premise of this thread is a bit silly.

There shouldn’t be a 3 track rule either. I don’t care if the charts aren’t “interesting” - all I care about is that that fairly and comprehensively reflect what’s been happening over the past 7 days without fear or favour. If they can’t do that, they might as well be the Pepsi Chart or the Big Top 40 - there’s nothing “official” about them. The 3 track rule and ACR have created artificial weighting to certain tracks and therefore made the final charts every week artificial. They may be “less boring”, but the charts should be interested in cold objective fact.

 

Personally I agree with this completely. While I understand the reasoning behind the restrictions in the Official chart, I still want to see what the chart really looks like. Unfortunately unless you're in the industry, the OCC/BPI or whomever don't allow you to see this or report this in any real capacity and that is what really annoys me. I can see their reasoning behind this too (to stop any confusion about there being more than one chart produced by them), but perhaps they could allow it to be disseminated as the Official Unoffical Chart?

While I understand the reasoning behind the restrictions in the Official chart, I still want to see what the chart really looks like. Unfortunately unless you're in the industry, the OCC/BPI or whomever don't allow you to see this or report this in any real capacity and that is what really annoys me. I can see their reasoning behind this too (to stop any confusion about there being more than one chart produced by them), but perhaps they could allow it to be disseminated as the Official Unoffical Chart?

I certainly wish they did publish the Old Rules chart - would save me time estimating it every week for one thing! ^_^

Billboard kinda does now

 

Personally ACR is needed, or a cap or something to that extend. My rationale is that we don't have a streams-only chart but a hybrid chart with streams, downloads and even CD sales now once again. Since downlods and CD sales only count once and never again even if you listen 75 times, there has to be a cap to streams. That's my rationale and in my head ACR makes sense. Is the chart accurate? Probably not, but it has never been.

I think as we’ve said in other threads if you had a lifetime instead of a daily cap on streams per song for each user you hopefully wouldn’t need ACR. It would be interesting to see how the chart would look with that - for example a most of the streams for Heat Waves now people giving it their umpteenth listen or is it in fact still picking up new fans each week?