It seems to be the HOT TOPIC right now. Kate Bush's RUTH has been given a reset despite being over 3 years old. Were the Official Charts Company right to do this given previous songs over the age of 3 haven't been given the same treatment?

 

Is this an exceptional circumstance or should one rule fit all? Vote in the poll and discuss below :cheer:

There’s complete sense in not blindly sticking to a rule when you encounter an anomaly or new situation. In this case it was making a mockery of the principles of what the chart should be… it would have been the easy option to blindly stick to the same thing in a ‘computer says no’ style but I’m glad they allowed common sense to prevail

I would have voted for a third option - they should have stuck to the rules and not made an exemption for RUTH, but all the ACR rules should be abolished anyway. Hope that makes sense haha

Yes, though the permanent ACR rule for 3 year old songs needs a rethink so it can be applied consistently. Just reset songs if they would have reached a new peak without ACR- problem solved.

Yes they were right to reset Kate!

 

BUT Levitating also should have had a reset last year when it went viral on TikTok. I still can't believe they had the nerve to do that and so soon after Billboard adjusted their own chart formula to prevent Levitating from going #1. Most robbed song!! #Justice4Leviating

Yes as she was the more streamed and bought track last week. It would have been a whole other ball game if she didn't sell more than the #1 last week obviously. It does cause a bit of controversy regarding the permanent ACR rule though as I feel they should keep it in place with only old songs that have no chance of grabbing a new peak in the chart. Situations like RUTH probably will only occur rarely anyway.

Edited June 14, 20223 yr by Roba!

I would have voted for a third option - they should have stuck to the rules and not made an exemption for RUTH, but all the ACR rules should be abolished anyway. Hope that makes sense haha

 

This is my view too, specifically for the three-year rule. I think it just looks like they've bowed to pressure and there'll be arguments over when they do this for other older songs, even though it is still a good thing because the rule is just pointless anyway. As I said in the other thread, it was clearly brought in to disadvantage the older Christmas songs and it hasn't worked in the slightest as they still are most of what's in the chart all through December.

 

(I also think they probably did this for increased PR as it has attracted much more attention to the charts than usual and made the news)

 

But my ultimate view is WHO CARES, we have an absolutely legendary artist getting a long overdue number 1 with a classic song that's been introduced to new generations. It's like Killing in the Name getting there, don't question it, just enjoy it :wub:

I have an issue with "labels requesting resets" as it gives power to artists that have stronger labels and lessens the power for more independent artists or those that don't have the money and support behind them. I voted yes to this and agree with Dandy*: it's healthy to evolve with the times and recognise when something needs adapting. The song is the biggest song aroudn the entire world right now and deserves this recognition in each nation it is dominating in!

I'll repeat what I said in Friday's commentary. A song that hasn't been in the charts for three years should be automatically reset to SCR. Any three-year-old song that has never charted wouldn't go on to ACR in the first place.

I question anyone who thinks stick to the rules. Remember 2007 when all existing rules were lifted from the chart? An exciting time! But 10 years later they slapped on loads of rules to fabricate the chart every week. The rules need scrapping.

I think they were correct to reset it - its revival is extremely significant and it would be wrong to stop that being reflected in the chart just because it's old. It doesn't even feel like it's opening a can of worms IMO - it's clearly a different case to the Christmas tracks which get a yearly boost due to their topic coming into favour. This is a cultural phenomenon and not the kinda thing that happens often.

 

I do think they need to be quicker to act on stuff like this. A song like Frank Ocean's Lost should've had a reset even without the label asking, considering it was a very significant boost and wasn't a hit initially. Taylor's Don't Blame Me is a similar case right now - in fact, I'd actually say it's near-certain that the OCC would grant that a reset if they were asked, it's no different to Declan McKenna's Brazil for example, but I assume Taylor's old label aren't going to ask for one of her songs to get a reset, especially with the continued dispute over her master recordings.

 

ACR does a great job on the whole but I wish the OCC would react quicker to these instances - the chart could do a better job at reflecting the unusual boosts given to old songs for one reason or another.

The first option duh? ;P unless you're not a fan of the (easily) most popular song of the week being #1 - i hate when that happens too :drama:

 

It's more that a reset should have been granted from the off, as should be the case for any older track experiencing newfound viral success or reaching a new peak, which feels like a regular enough occurrence at this point. There's zero point in handicapping those songs with this completely arbitrary rule...

 

I think it should have been auto-reset two weeks before it was as soon as set for a new peak - so the week it would have been #2 but was actually #8.

I think it should have been auto-reset two weeks before it was as soon as set for a new peak - so the week it would have been #2 but was actually #8.

Agree completely. 2 would've been a new peak for the song and that is where it would have been on a level playing field. We have had prior examples of old songs peaking at a new position throughout chart history following renewed interest e.e. Unchained Melody, Stand by me etc which would have been disadvantaged if streaming and this rule had been present then. This is a relatively unique situation unlike the xmas songs which chart every year. If an old song is going to reach a new peak (on reset) then the song should be reset as it shows renewed interest in a track. This should be automatic and not happen only 2 weeks after there is evidence of a resurgence....

Of course I'd personally scrap ACR anyway as you shouldn't penalize songs just because the general public still like to listen to ithem. I know that would slow things down, but at least it would reflect what people were listening to more accurately.

Edited June 14, 20223 yr by braindeadpj

I'll repeat what I said in Friday's commentary. A song that hasn't been in the charts for three years should be automatically reset to SCR. Any three-year-old song that has never charted wouldn't go on to ACR in the first place.

I think this is the fairest one I've seen tbh.

 

But perhaps because older songs are usually only boosted by a TV performance on talent shows (so have more chance of being one week wonders most of the time) etc... if they can chart for 2 weeks on ACR then it gets automatically reset to SCR on the 3rd week (ala Kate now) due to being genuinely popular or something.

 

But I like Suedes idea the most.

I think they should just scrap the 3 year rule again, the purpose it was brought in for pretty much completely failed so all it does is dilute genuine big surges in support for older songs like this. Of course I think it was the right thing for them to reset Kate on this occasion at the very least.

 

There was never really any point trying to 'save' the charts from being completely dominated from Christmas songs at Christmas with this rule, that is just the reality of how people consume music.

Not sure if been mentioned, but I also think in the back of the OCCs mind they want to stop As It Was having a ridiculous streak at number one (20+ weeks or something) and this way puts a positive spin on it and the focus elsewhere.

 

Also, the rules are silly anyway but I like the new peak auto-reset as an option IF acr has to stay.

as some said above, I think what the OCC should have done is change the rules

rather than make the 1 exception

 

so reset KB but abolish the 3 year rule

 

 

This never should have been a rule in the first place.

 

One rule for ACR was enough - the one about if sales haven't gone up for 3 weeks in a row. Adding a completely arbitrary 3 year limit was always weird.

A hard no from me. But I'm the camp the rule should never have existed in the first place.