Yup, the 'new chart rules' (a return to the old days, surely, what sells sells and is counted) will do nothing more than represent what we are listening to.

 

The physical single is on its last legs, with the exception ironically of the 7" which continues to increase sales on year (mainly cos bands have begun producing them more often in favour of cassette singles or that most horrible 3rd cd single cash-in)

 

I reckon there should be no restriction to number of tracks on a single though (for as long as it lasts). In 1992 I bought 'Papua New Guinea' by Future Sound of London. It had 8 tracks (7", 12" versions and six remixes) and all for £2.99. Commercially it's folly, but why the hell stop acts giving their fans a little treat every now and again?

Songs like Papua New Guinea could chart in multi-remix versions again though, the physical rules are more or less the same now as they were in 1992:

 

2 track CD - can play up to 10 minutes and contain up to 2 tracks (that rule only came in during 2004)

 

7" vinyl - up to 3 tracks and 20 minutes

 

Maxi-CD / 12" vinyl - up to 25 minutes long and up to 4 tracks and as many mixes of each of those tracks.

 

Remix single (CD or 12") - one featured song and as many remixes of that song, up to 40 minutes

 

 

It is possible now to release an unlimited amount of mixes of a song on 3 formats and with a total maximum running time of 85 minutes across 3 formats. What is surprising is that many acts are just not bothering to take advantage of this.

Edited January 15, 200718 yr by Robbie

It's been like this in America for years.

 

 

Not saying much!

plus these changes to the physical singles rules are only the start. The Chart Supervisory Committee are looking into relaxing other rules relating to physical singles. My guess is that this could only be either to increase the amount of formats that count towards a chart position from 3 to 4 (probably unlikely). More likely would be looking at rules surrounding what packaging is allowable with a physical single eg stickers, posters - something that would encourage people to actually go out and buy a single.

I do and will always perfer to buy a CD of a song I particulary love of like Evanescence/Charlotte Church/Delta Goodrem - I collect all the singles.

I wasn't keen on this new idea at first but I think it brings back the element of surprise to the charts again. Anything could happen which is exciting and seriously I think it will boost sales in the longrun. People moan that sales on the year end thing are diabolically low though well last year the likes of Justin & Aguilera missed out on 50ks worht of downloads being added to their offical totals before the song was physically released. I for one like it so the year charts can become healthy again like the late 90s.

 

I also think the music industry is a ****ing b**ch - X Factor is proof of this and also ironically Mika describes what a c**t it is in his song. ^_^ There are many bands and artists I am huge fans of who will never be big enough to get a record deal and will never make the top 200 let alone the top 40 and if this gives them that chance then I am all for it 100%.

plus these changes to the physical singles rules are only the start. The Chart Supervisory Committee are looking into relaxing other rules relating to physical singles. My guess is that this could only be either to increase the amount of formats that count towards a chart position from 3 to 4 (probably unlikely). More likely would be looking at rules surrounding what packaging is allowable with a physical single eg stickers, posters - something that would encourage people to actually go out and buy a single.

That sounds good. A sticker really should not disqualify the physical.

What was the thing with Imogen's single. Something about the artwork, I remember it seemed rather daft.

That sounds good. A sticker really should not disqualify the physical.

What was the thing with Imogen's single. Something about the artwork, I remember it seemed rather daft.

Too many folds -_-

Too many folds -_-

 

 

What a bunch of $h!t! How can they do that?!?

The quality of the song will be the eventual difference between a record being a success or not...not the number of tracks, formats or freebies. Really, people should be allowed to release what they want and how they want with all sales counting.

 

If the NME 'gives away' one of their crappy compilations of demos / b-sides and session tracks do their sales get docked? Nope, they call it a resounding success as another 20,000 people buy the mag for the Arctic Monkeys 'exclusive' and promptly bin the inconsequential rag.

 

I'm pleased that 'remix CD and 12inches' are back...don't hold too much hope for another 8 tracker like FSOL, but at least there is the opportunity now.

but ive heard all this before... and the charts are still here...

It's been like this in America for years.

Not saying much!

Yeah but no one really cares about the singles chart in America do they?

Id prefer the old days when a #1 meant something, now most people dont seem to care :( you only have to sell 20,000 to be #1 anway

I agree, sales just keep on declining. Many people download illegally, so sales don't count aswell. It's just $h!t.

I agree, sales just keep on declining. Many people download illegally, so sales don't count aswell. It's just $h!t.

 

 

I think 80% of people download illegally, why pay 79p for 1 track when its free on so many sites

I don't mind download-only songs being able to chart because if it sells enough it should do

 

But it's when album tracks etc. that will be able to chart is the part i thinks not on because it should be a singles chart, and at least give record co. enough control that a song can only chart if it is a single and has a video, albeit only a £200 video, just as long as it's a single in the first place

 

So does this mean that if you download an album each track on the album gets 1 digital sale to contribute to it's chart placing?

Edited January 16, 200718 yr by blade699

I agree, sales just keep on declining. Many people download illegally, so sales don't count aswell. It's just $h!t.

Why havn't the likes of Limewire been closed down? they got rid of the illegal napster!

those places are destroying the charts, overall the internet has played a BIG part in killing the charts :angry:

Why havn't the likes of Limewire been closed down? they got rid of the illegal napster!

those places are destroying the charts, overall the internet has played a BIG part in killing the charts :angry:

(old) Napster had central servers, so the company was held to be liable for copyright infringement and sued out of existance. Limewire on the other hand is nothing more than a piece of software that allows computers to connect with each other. There is no central server, so Limewire itself (the company that codes the program itself) can't be held liable. The program is eventually (supposedly) going to be changed so that anything that requires a licence can't be downloaded without permission, but this hasn't happened yet. And even if it did, there's enough people still have current and old program versions that would still be able to be used.

 

So does this mean that if you download an album each track on the album gets 1 digital sale to contribute to it's chart placing?

if you download an album as a bundle (ie the album in its entirety) then it counts as an album sale and towards the album charts. If you download each track separately then that counts as separate downloads and towards the singles chart.

 

I seriously think this whole Uk Chart thing has hit Rock Bottom,

Just heard that anyone can get into the charts even if they don't have a record deal :rolleyes: Also, looks like CD's will die out soon, which is a a big shame, cause I'm one of those people who would rather by the single then download it.

And don't get me started on the whole Westlife getting to #1, no 1 million single seller this year,

 

Seriously, I think the Uk Charts are done for -_-

 

Lol, I think the inclusing of downloads serve exactly to prevent fanbase acts to have number ones on and on selling 20.000 copies in each release week... Now they have to compete with real popular music, and I bet Westlife and McFly will have less ease to top the charts from now on, plus, acts like Madonna and U2 will not be dead cert top 5 with each release since their fanbase buyng will not be enough to guarantee them hits anymore. Anyone needs to sell downloads to have a good position.

 

Well, if one artist can sell enough to be on the chart WITHOUT A RECORD DEAL, then I think it deserves even more to have a chart placing. A record deal doesn´t mean nothing, labels are usually interested in deals with manufactured barbies like JoJo without any musical talent, if something has to be banned off the charts it´s that type of stuff...

I think 80% of people download illegally, why pay 79p for 1 track when its free on so many sites

 

Exactly - that's why sales are so low.

Why havn't the likes of Limewire been closed down? they got rid of the illegal napster!

those places are destroying the charts, overall the internet has played a BIG part in killing the charts :angry:

I do agree about Limewire.

 

I agree, sales just keep on declining. Many people download illegally, so sales don't count aswell. It's just $h!t.

 

Exactly - that's why sales are so low.

Generally incorrect. Sales are not low because of this, there has always been a level of piracy of music. In the past recording from radio. It's the same thing, only the media has changed.

In many ways I feel music is more likely to be purchased now then ever before. The difference is that there is a tendency to buy the albums in a physical format, because once you make the effort you go for the Album. Things are changing again and we can look forward to growth in download single sales.