3 hours ago, PeteFromLeeds said:

The alternative would be leaving the charts as they are and 'revamping' the niche charts like the Rock / Dance charts to make success on there a more prestigious thing, so getting into the 'main' chart is less of an event.

This would be the easiest and makes lost sense they already do with the independant charts so it shouldnt be too hard to apply to others

I still think add a radio airplay element to the chart. It’s another way that music is consumed. I don’t see how it’s any different to passively listening to playlisted tracks by Spotify. It would also mean more variety and more movement/upredictability in the chart and give a chance for legacy acts to shine. Also, scrap ACR and the max number of tracks by an artist which can chart. Furthermore, only allow the top 5 Christmas songs to chart or move older tracks to a Christmas catalogue chart.

Edited Monday at 21:202 days by reissus123

5 hours ago, PeteFromLeeds said:

Here's a set of rules that crossed my mind a little while ago:

When a song hasn't reached a new sales (i.e. chart units) peak in three weeks, it gets put on a 'ratio path', where in each continuing week it goes to 1:200, 1:300, 1:600, 1:1200 etc. and stops at a point in which the song would be definitely out of the charts. The song stays on this path regardless of whether it increases or decreases in sales each of these weeks.

However, if a song reaches an all-time new sales peak, or its highest sales record within the last 10 years, it gets completely reset and goes back onto SCR. The idea being that songs that are still on the way 'up' stay in the charts regardless of how long they've been in there, but songs which stick around for ages after peaking will be gone quickly, leaving space for new songs.

Of course the argument against this will be that it's skewing the charts so much that it's not a useful metric any more, which I can't argue against, other than asking what the purpose of the chart actually is for the music industry - is it measuring the levels of success for new songs / artists, or seeing what the most popular songs are even if they're a year or so old?

The alternative would be leaving the charts as they are and 'revamping' the niche charts like the Rock / Dance charts to make success on there a more prestigious thing, so getting into the 'main' chart is less of an event.

The problem is that the genre charts (especially the rock chart) don’t move a lot. More people stream rock from the last 40 years than any modern rock music. The chart died with emo.

52 minutes ago, Paramore said:

The problem is that the genre charts (especially the rock chart) don’t move a lot. More people stream rock from the last 40 years than any modern rock music. The chart died with emo.

IMO it doesn’t help that they don’t classify a lot of actual charting rock songs as “rock”. They’ll have Fall Out Boy’s very pop Uma Thurman, but not Dexter and The Moonrocks or Yungblud.

I’d open it up to a Rock/Alternative chart, and include the likes of Dominic Fike, Fontaines D.C., Sam Fender, Noah Kahan, etc.

I’m surprised a Country Singles Chart hasn’t been launched yet too.

Just wanted to say I really enjoyed reading all of this & everyone's ideas!

If they ever can they should try to stop autoplay on streaming sites from counting towards the chart.

I used to be astonished that the OCC apparently didn't have the capacity to determine which streams had been ordered-up on demand and which were just passively listened-to via a pre-conceived playlist put together by the provider. However, it's struck me since that they will only receive data in the way that streaming services are able (and more importantly, willing) to supply to them for chart compilation purposes. I think the bottom line is that most if not all are not prepared to do the sort of granular breakdowns of their data that would be necessary to delineate between the two kinds of listen, and so there's not much the OCC can do about it. Even if it had resources to utilise the sort of tech required to do that kind of drilled-down analysis, if the data is simply only provided to them as a raw figure of how many listens there were over whatever the runtime limit is (is it 30 seconds?), then they can't then analyse it further to try and establish how many were passive and how many were on demand.

Another aspect of streaming data reporting that still bewilders me - and which I genuinely can't believe cannot be rectified in today's high-tech, fast-paced world of data - is that the OCC are still having to estimate the streams for a whole day (Thursday)! Even in July 2017 when this car-crash combined chart had its various rules imposed to try and contain the unwanted effects of streaming, that seemed a bit old hat, akin to when BMRB (and initially even Gallup, with all their computing prowess brought to bear) still couldn't collect data comprehensively or quickly enough to compile a Christmas week chart! Yet here we are, nine years on, and apparently Thursday streams are still entirely guessed at thanks to lack of proper data. I'm hardly expert on this area, but as a layman outsider, I can't help but feel this has to be more to do with streaming services' laziness than a lack of technical capacity to compile and provide the actual data for Thursday in time for the new chart to be processed and published the following day.

The OCC has many faults, some of which it absolutely could fix itself, and so far totally refuses to bother doing so, even when people from fora like this let them know in no uncertain terms! But some issues with the chart's compilation are I think more to do with the services providing streaming data than the company tasked with marshalling it all.

7 minutes ago, Gambo said:

I used to be astonished that the OCC apparently didn't have the capacity to determine which streams had been ordered-up on demand and which were just passively listened-to via a pre-conceived playlist put together by the provider. However, it's struck me since that they will only receive data in the way that streaming services are able (and more importantly, willing) to supply to them for chart compilation purposes. I think the bottom line is that most if not all are not prepared to do the sort of granular breakdowns of their data that would be necessary to delineate between the two kinds of listen, and so there's not much the OCC can do about it. Even if it had resources to utilise the sort of tech required to do that kind of drilled-down analysis, if the data is simply only provided to them as a raw figure of how many listens there were over whatever the runtime limit is (is it 30 seconds?), then they can't then analyse it further to try and establish how many were passive and how many were on demand.

I feel like the separation of 'active' and 'passive' streams as many people swing it is just one of those things that sounds great on the outside, but the more you think about it, the more it collapses in terms of the realistic benefits or outcomes. Same going for limiting people to 1 listen or anything like that. I don't think there's any tangible evidence that it'll actually resemble the working, exciting chart people expect, it'd just collapse the numbers unilaterally. If this does anything on the whole, it's that it makes it a lot easier to create unnatural chart runs, either via those first day curiosity streams being massively bolstered, or just anyone who wants to fudge the numbers via nefarious methods now having a lower bar for entry.

Maybe I'm wrong but is this how some people use Spotify? They just look up every specific song they want to listen to one by one and add to queue? Of course they're gonna be massively outnumbered by the people who just set it and go. I don't even think that's necessarily a problem either. As I type this, I'm currently listening to a playlist I put together and just put on shuffle. By some definitions this is the valid path, but to others, it's a passive heresy and I couldn't possibly enjoy these songs as much as the steady right click/left clicker (I love these songs).

I will note however just for a point of interest. A few weeks ago, lastfm had its connection with Spotify recalibrate. All you have to do is go to your account's connection page and put it back up, but the consequence of this is that every artist's daily scrobbles have plummeted to about 20-30% of what it was before (PSA if you haven't checked your account in a while, you probably stopped scrobbling!). I don't think any artist has escaped this, but K-Pop artists seem to have fared a little better than most, so make of that what you will. All those massive hit songs you've loved in the last decade that defined your moment were inevitably being powered by those supposedly passive listeners to a likely similar extent. I don't believe the OCC ever feels the need to comment on this because it's just one of those 'missing the big picture' ideas that aren't worth the bother refuting, because reaching out like that only makes more threads of bother come up, now that it's clear you can badger this out of them.

12 hours ago, reissus123 said:

I still think add a radio airplay element to the chart. It’s another way that music is consumed. I don’t see how it’s any different to passively listening to playlisted tracks by Spotify. It would also mean more variety and more movement/upredictability in the chart and give a chance for legacy acts to shine. Also, scrap ACR and the max number of tracks by an artist which can chart. Furthermore, only allow the top 5 Christmas songs to chart or move older tracks to a Christmas catalogue chart.

Good grief no. radio plays would ruin things further IMO, only music paid for should be eligible.

There’s a lot said about streaming services, the data they supply etc.,

Streaming services have little concern with the official charts, they have their own charts, providing granular data is time consuming and expensive so there is little motivation for them to do so for a chart that doesn't concern them.

Streaming services aim is to increase paying listeners and listener hours not spend half their time breaking down how many streams of o song Kathy from Scunthorpe done.

Honestly including radio would make the chart more interesting and help bridge the gap between radio audiences vs streaming audiences. It would make it relevant again to the charts.

In olden times, increasing/sustained radio play would usually translate into increased sale/chart positions. But with steaming increased radio play has almost no influence there. The #1 song on radio can be almost non-existent on streaming services and vice versa.

Radio playlists tends to be fresher/have a higher turnover than streaming playlists as well - particularly the larger playlists such as today's top hits where songs can spend 1+ years on them.

22 hours ago, 777666jason said:

If 1 play per account counts we will end up with a number 1 with under 10k sales or even a lot lower 🤣

Sales that low are definitely no indication of whats popular in the country which is the whole point of the chart

Would a change in the streaming to sales ratio help with that though?

Radio is absolutely not the solution, it means songs by indie artists or songs that don't fit what an executive wants their station to sound like have an instant disadvantage. Not to mention radio is nowhere near as big as it once was and it would just prolong the chart runs of songs that are already past their peak. The best part about the UK chart is that it has no direct radio influence and it truly is the "people's chart". And yes curated playlists on streaming services are similar but at least in that case the listener has the option to skip a song.

Adding radio would be a terrible idea and it's not remotely similar to streaming - you can very easily skip songs on curated playlists so it really isn't the same thing. The last thing we want to do is give more power to industry bigwigs who decide which artists are and aren't relevant, especially when it seems like Radio 1, for example, are moving past that a little, given recent Madonna playlistings for example.

1 hour ago, Dircadirca said:

I feel like the separation of 'active' and 'passive' streams as many people swing it is just one of those things that sounds great on the outside, but the more you think about it, the more it collapses in terms of the realistic benefits or outcomes. Same going for limiting people to 1 listen or anything like that. I don't think there's any tangible evidence that it'll actually resemble the working, exciting chart people expect, it'd just collapse the numbers unilaterally. If this does anything on the whole, it's that it makes it a lot easier to create unnatural chart runs, either via those first day curiosity streams being massively bolstered, or just anyone who wants to fudge the numbers via nefarious methods now having a lower bar for entry.

Maybe I'm wrong but is this how some people use Spotify? They just look up every specific song they want to listen to one by one and add to queue? Of course they're gonna be massively outnumbered by the people who just set it and go. I don't even think that's necessarily a problem either. As I type this, I'm currently listening to a playlist I put together and just put on shuffle. By some definitions this is the valid path, but to others, it's a passive heresy and I couldn't possibly enjoy these songs as much as the steady right click/left clicker (I love these songs).

I will note however just for a point of interest. A few weeks ago, lastfm had its connection with Spotify recalibrate. All you have to do is go to your account's connection page and put it back up, but the consequence of this is that every artist's daily scrobbles have plummeted to about 20-30% of what it was before (PSA if you haven't checked your account in a while, you probably stopped scrobbling!). I don't think any artist has escaped this, but K-Pop artists seem to have fared a little better than most, so make of that what you will. All those massive hit songs you've loved in the last decade that defined your moment were inevitably being powered by those supposedly passive listeners to a likely similar extent. I don't believe the OCC ever feels the need to comment on this because it's just one of those 'missing the big picture' ideas that aren't worth the bother refuting, because reaching out like that only makes more threads of bother come up, now that it's clear you can badger this out of them.

Like front-loaded fanbase CD single sales of the 90s/00s. At least it made the top 10 interesting, and made getting a top 10 seem a lot more achievable.

I hate the idea of any kind of ratio changes after so many weeks policy, I think that makes the chart runs look worse than front loaded releases. That's why I think one play per account only should count, like one purchase of a CD single. If someone then listens to the same song on a different streaming service, well we'll call that the equivalent of going out and buying CD 2!

6 minutes ago, vancey said:

That's why I think one play per account only should count, like one purchase of a CD single. If someone then listens to the same song on a different streaming service, well we'll call that the equivalent of going out and buying CD 2!

Thats literally never going to happen - imagine the amount of data, time and cost to track millions of users play counts and then subtracting any plays after 1 to submit to the OCC.

There is zero benefit for the streaming companies to even attempt to do that.

OCC could use AI to process the data fairly quickly surely?

22 minutes ago, vancey said:

Like front-loaded fanbase CD single sales of the 90s/00s. At least it made the top 10 interesting, and made getting a top 10 seem a lot more achievable.

I hate the idea of any kind of ratio changes after so many weeks policy, I think that makes the chart runs look worse than front loaded releases. That's why I think one play per account only should count, like one purchase of a CD single. If someone then listens to the same song on a different streaming service, well we'll call that the equivalent of going out and buying CD 2!

I feel like that sort of thing would turn it more to farce, which prevents it from being particularly interesting. Like sure, it is interesting what got to #1 in Canada before Billboard took over the chart in 2007, but is a chart that's telling me "Blue Orchid" by The White Stripes was more popular than "We Belong Together" by Mariah Carey very useful?

20 minutes ago, vancey said:

OCC could use AI to process the data fairly quickly surely?

Why would we campaign the use of AI?

21 minutes ago, vancey said:

OCC could use AI to process the data fairly quickly surely?

Yes at considerable cost - the major record companies and wider industry don’t seem to be making noise about the charts, long running songs etc., so again there seems no need for that to happen.

Outside of Buzzjack, UKMix and those same people commenting on the OCC posts it’s a chart fans problem rather than an actual one.