well clearly not as Stranger Things also gave 'Pass the Dutchie' a chart revival, albeit a much much more low-key one as it only managed to make it to #89 last week, and I don't believe that song is going to ever get a reset.

Obviously I haven't researched, but all the people I know of that have a last.fm account are those who will actively seek out new music. I don't think that's representative of the wider public who I honestly believe are far more inclined to shove a playlist on and listen to whatever's on it (maybe skipping songs they don't like). Through that kind of passive listening, you're almost certain to be fed the same songs over and over and over again.

10 to 15 years ago maybe but nowadays there isn't a huge divergence from the bigger picture (although last.fm has a big BTS lean relatively speaking). But as an avid follower of last.fm charts back in the day, they were no less prone to stagnation than global charts are now, songs from The xx's debut were charting for years on end, alongside perennials like "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and of course "Mr. Brightside". I would take it a different way though, I think last.fm users are more inclined to listen a lot to music, enabling them to run up those numbers more quickly.

 

In any case, the main point of my post was that all things considered, the songs that are getting the more repeat plays are not inherently the really old ones, they just stay so high because *a lot* of people listen to them once or twice a year, compared to the relatively smaller subset of music fans who primarily consume current top 40 hits.

10 to 15 years ago maybe but nowadays there isn't a huge divergence from the bigger picture (although last.fm has a big BTS lean relatively speaking). But as an avid follower of last.fm charts back in the day, they were no less prone to stagnation than global charts are now, songs from The xx's debut were charting for years on end, alongside perennials like "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and of course "Mr. Brightside". I would take it a different way though, I think last.fm users are more inclined to listen a lot to music, enabling them to run up those numbers more quickly.

 

In any case, the main point of my post was that all things considered, the songs that are getting the more repeat plays are not inherently the really old ones, they just stay so high because *a lot* of people listen to them once or twice a year, compared to the relatively smaller subset of music fans who primarily consume current top 40 hits.

Guess this is exposing my relevance to what's popular. I still can't recall anyone aside from people on here (or similar) and one friend (whose listening habits are so far removed from literally everyone I know in real life...) using last.fm - and he tends to choose what he feels like listening to alot more, and so many of his favourites songs were in wayyyyy over 10 plays.

 

Most people I know (of a wide variety of ages) do just shove on a playlist. If my pool is a sample representative of the general population, it's difficult for me to see how the songs hitting the Top 10 wouldn't rack up 10 plays per person within a month or so. You'd get your lower positioned songs racking up plays slower, and you'd get songs on more low-key playlists also building up 'sales' at a lower rate.

 

As I say, I don't have the data, this is purely based on what I've seen. And it's the only way I can think of that would (potentially) keep the chart fresh in an organic way:

 

Official Chart (or sales chart, or whatever you want to call it) - Sales and Lifetime Stream Cap

Streaming Chart - Total Plays (capped at 10 per day if they must)

 

(either way, it's never gonna happen)

 

I just can't stand ACR. I'm prefer change more than anyone I know, as things can always be improved... I'm just REALLY not a fan of a chart that's supposed to be representing something, not really representing anything.

Maybe the 3 year rule is about to be scrapped in July and they're relaxing it early as this is a high profile case? Pure speculation, but they did similar in 2006 when Fairytale Of New York climbed to #6 while, by the letter of the rules then in place, it should have been turfed out of the chart as it reached 52 weeks since its 2005 physical (re)release, but they scrapped that rule a fortnight later anyway.

I never knew this, was there a 52-week recurrent rule or something back then?

I never knew this, was there a 52-week recurrent rule or something back then?

Yes, from Mar-Dec 2006 a song could only chart if it had a physical release on either the following week or at some point within the previous 52 weeks without being deleted. Once it was deleted, the song would become ineligible 2 or 3 weeks later, resulting in Crazy and Maneater dropping out completely from the Top 10 and Chasing Cars breaking what would have been a (still record) 112 week chart run.

 

These rules meant that some songs which had been physically released within the previous 52 weeks could chart on downloads long before being re-released, which allowed them to slowly climb (e.g. Fall Out Boy - Sugar We're Going Down) and that also applied to Fairytale Of New York when it first climbed back to the Top 10 in Dec 2006. It would have been joined by All I Want For Christmas Is You, but as that hadn't been physically released during that year it remained ineligible until those restrictions were lifted in Jan 2007.

 

Edit: in fact the 52 week rule was in place before that, starting from the point downloads were introduced to the chart in 2005, and it was during that time the Fall Out Boy song and I Predict A Riot effectively charted on downloads alone (also Feel Good Inc which had a very limited vinyl release before the CD). The differences then were that songs couldn't chart the week before release, but once they had been released it didn't matter if they were deleted.

Edited June 20, 20223 yr by jimwatts

This is one of the things I don’t like about streaming. Old songs being able to return to no1 after years of absence. It would never have happened in the 80s or 90s and just seems out of sync.

Songs that are 'out of sync' have hit #1 pretty regularly throughout the history of the charts due to physical re-releases though? (If we were somehow still in the physical era I imagine 'Running Up That Hill (A Deal With God)' likely would have been given a re-release around now)

Absolutely, old songs were regularly rereleased to tie in with film features or even just adverts!

Absolutely, old songs were regularly rereleased to tie in with film features or even just adverts!

 

Yep!!! happened quite a few times, The Bluebells - Young at Heart, The Hollies - He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother and a few others.

 

Awaits '3 Lions' later in the year :lol:

This is one of the things I don’t like about streaming. Old songs being able to return to no1 after years of absence. It would never have happened in the 80s or 90s and just seems out of sync.

 

Oh, you mean apart from when Ben E King's “Stand By Me” went back to No1 in 1987 or The Clash's “Should I Stay Or Should I Go” went back to No1 in 1991 or Mint Royale's “Singin' In The Rain” from the post download era of 2008.

 

I think the OCC were right to allow the reset- the song has clearly had a significant uplift in consumption and is more popular than anything else out right now purely because a new generation are just now discovering Kate's music. I think that it's significant, clearly a great thing, and it is right that the chart reflects that.