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?

Well it's #23 on the Sales chart, so if that's any guide as to how many people are discovering it on streaming as well, it's in the right place.

 

As I've said before, if the OCC were able to apply a lifetime streaming cap, I think they'd have already done so, or looked into it at least. The last thing we want is a chart that's so expensive to compile that it requires a subscription or excessive advertising.

 

Also, and this isn't in direct response, but I still don't understand why some people have such an issue with Heat Waves - it's literally one song in the Top 40, same with Mr Brightside in the Top 100, and removing them because they're old won't transform the charts.

As I've said before, if the OCC were able to apply a lifetime streaming cap, I think they'd have already done so, or looked into it at least. The last thing we want is a chart that's so expensive to compile that it requires a subscription or excessive advertising.

I can’t quite see how a lifetime cap would be more difficult to implement than a daily cap - I would have thought it would be less onerous if anything. Of course I have no idea how streaming data is gathered so I could easily be wrong. Sorry I’m probably repeating myself now too. :)

I think it's the streaming companies who apply the streaming caps rather than the OCC - certainly repeat plays appear to be filtered out. Can't find the link but it was discussed before that this was a reason for discrepancies between Spotify's daily and weekly charts.

If the purpose is to represent true popularity, then a stream cap would be counter-intuitive. A song that compels people to listen to it hundreds of times each certainly must have something going for it that a song people dip out on after 3 plays doesn't, and should proportionately be represented as thus. If we're really in the interest of representing true popularity, then you should not count streams until someone's streamed something twice, the first is just a sampler usually after all*. I think in general though, tinkering with chart rules in order to restore a preferred state of affairs is inherently biased which I think charts should attempt to avoid making apparent. Not to mention all you'll get is a slight quick fix before settling on a similarly dull equilibrium and you'll need a quick fix on that.

 

*I am not genuinely advocating for this

 

Also btw last.fm has been tracking plays of it for nearly 2 decades and the average user who has listened to "Mr. Brightside" (the most recorded song on the platform) has only listened to it 11 times on average, I think it's underestimated how much of a long running song's stream comes from the fact that it has a much wider audience than current top 40 hits who may only listen to the song a few times a year if that. I think any reasonable listener cap would have a barely noticeable effect outside of BTS fans, who I don't think deserve to be vilified for their passionate fanfare.

Why are people still so against streaming in the year of 2022? It's the most accurate charts have ever been. Once you purchase a song that's it - you could never listen to it again. Streaming shows what songs are still popular months and years later and accurately reflects consumption. And music has never been so accessible you can discover as many new songs and artists as you want. Streaming is easily the best thing ever to happen to music.

I don’t think anyone’s against streaming as such. It’s more that we’re still used to the idea of a chart where you buy a song and it charts, and then it drops out of the chart once everyone’s purchased it even if people are still listening to it. In the streaming world the song remains in the charts until people give up playing it. That’s effectively the issue that ACR is trying to grapple with. And there’s no consensus either on the best way of doing that or on the extent to which it’s a problem in the first place. But as I’ve said I think the existing rules are a decent compromise all in all.

One thing to bear in mind is that 20 years ago a tune had been doing the rounds on the music channels, radio etc. for several weeks before it hit the charts. Nowadays it's eligible to chart from the moment it's heard by the general public.

 

My view is that they should get rid of the rules they brought in after all those Ed Sheeran hits. If artist x has the 4 biggest singles of the week then they should occupy the Top 4 instead of number 4 not being in the charts at all. It also means it's unlikely we'll see Bryan Adams 16 week record broken. Yes we would get sick of said record if it did beat Bryan Adams much like we got sick of Bryan Adams at the time, but it's much more interested to have the possibility there than knowing it's never going to happen.

 

Let's face it the charts are stale with these rules in place so it can't be any worse by not having them there.

 

One thing I do think would make it better is if only official singles were eligible to chart.

Oh I still think Bryan Adams’ record could be broken - with a big enough song it would only take 3 well timed boosts to dodge ACR long enough. It’s unlikely to happen because it’s a once in a generation event in the first place, but it could happen.

 

I can’t say I like the sound of only official singles being eligible to chart. The whole concept of a single vs an album track is becoming less meaningful now anyway. That would eliminate the possibility of a TikTok hit, and those have produced some of the more interesting chart moments lately, and it would be taking power over the charts away from the public and towards record labels, which is rarely a positive step.

On another note… can we please recommend Popchartfreak as our next veteran member! He’s done a great job substituting for Suedehead2 recently in the weekly charts and I want to see his username in red soon! :)

aww that's very flattering, thanks but I'm only veteran in the sense that I'm old :lol: There are much-longer-contributing folk than me and my involvement is more as a fan than an organiser like Simon and other behind-the-scenes folk :D

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.

 

I'm too tight to buy something I've never heard :lol: I did buy a lot of (cheap) week one singles myself, though, too, and I still buy around 8 -10 a week on average (downloads) after playing them on youtube, and asking myself the question "do I want to hear that again?" If I do, and it's interesting/good, I buy it so I can play it as often as I need to hear it. And none of my repeat plays count towards the chart, just the week one sale :lol:

Why are people still so against streaming in the year of 2022? It's the most accurate charts have ever been. Once you purchase a song that's it - you could never listen to it again. Streaming shows what songs are still popular months and years later and accurately reflects consumption. And music has never been so accessible you can discover as many new songs and artists as you want. Streaming is easily the best thing ever to happen to music.

 

That's what kept the chart fresh and ever-changing, the pace of singles life-span was 10 or 12 weeks at most in the old days, give or take the occasional Kling-on, they had a natural lifespan in the charts based on people loving it enough to buy it - but that didn't mean they stopped being popular, radio, TV, fans played them beyond their chart life, and it allowed other new stuff to get a shot at the top 10 and spots on TV. The turnover was high - one might argue too high in the 90's when marketing forced week one sales rather than a progression up and down the chart - but that kept me gripped each week. I'm fairly indifferent these days, sadly. :cry:

Oh I still think Bryan Adams’ record could be broken - with a big enough song it would only take 3 well timed boosts to dodge ACR long enough. It’s unlikely to happen because it’s a once in a generation event in the first place, but it could happen.

 

I can’t say I like the sound of only official singles being eligible to chart. The whole concept of a single vs an album track is becoming less meaningful now anyway. That would eliminate the possibility of a TikTok hit, and those have produced some of the more interesting chart moments lately, and it would be taking power over the charts away from the public and towards record labels, which is rarely a positive step.

 

I thought the days of records spending many weeks at number one had long gone, but when I heard about Drake being on course to beat Bryan Adams record I looked at the charts for the first time in years and have kept an eye on them since.

 

I've never quite understood the whole TikTok thing so forgive my ignorance, but what is stopping a TikTok person making their song an official single?

I've never quite understood the whole TikTok thing so forgive my ignorance, but what is stopping a TikTok person making their song an official single?

I mean I’ve never used it but I understand the effect is from random users deciding to feature a particular song in their video which goes viral - which in some cases is a different song from what the label intended to push or even a song from many years ago.

I think the “single” as we once knew it is largely redundant. Look at Adele - instant massive opening streams for her album tracks but then when she pushed “Oh My God” as a single it only limped back into the Top 20, having made #2 as an album cut.

I mean I’ve never used it but I understand the effect is from random users deciding to feature a particular song in their video which goes viral - which in some cases is a different song from what the label intended to push or even a song from many years ago.

I think the “single” as we once knew it is largely redundant. Look at Adele - instant massive opening streams for her album tracks but then when she pushed “Oh My God” as a single it only limped back into the Top 20, having made #2 as an album cut.

 

The Adele example is why I think it's a good idea. Likewise once the video goes viral they can decide to release it as a single.

Miss the double side singles. Not really singles chart anymore more song chart most song of albums. Need just count singles stop album tracks

Miss the double side singles. Not really singles chart anymore more song chart most song of albums. Need just count singles stop album tracks

Of course making it official singles only would almost preclude the need for a 3-track rule..... and get things back more to the pre-download era in one sense.

However, everything streamed is now double counted ('singles' and albums- up to 16 tracks-, even though they are at different ratio values), which can help make the market look healthy (or not...)