Matt147

Some more thoughts on reflection. In rejecting zoltzmusik's proposal some members have commented that the singles chart isn't there just for entertainment; it should primarily reflect sales, the idea presumably being we accept this whatever sort of chart is produced. I can agree with this, but it works both ways. Back in 2007/2008 when the charts were their most slow-moving of the 00s, arguments could equally have been made for trying to artificially speed them up (a sort of opposite from what's been argued now) - and this could have similarly been countered with the view that the charts are there to record sales, irrespective of movement. Indeed, that is the counter-argument I would have used back then (so I definitely can't really turn round now and be in favour or new chart rules to coax the chart into behaving how I would like it to I guess). That said, I think many of us do find the charts interesting/exciting/entertaining for a variety of reasons, eg high profile chart battles for top spots, long/short runners, and tracing slow-burners up the listings. If the slow-burners disappear it will, for me, remove a big part of the entertainment value of following the Top 40. This debate may become more and more relevant in the next few months. I didn't really follow the singles chart as much back in 1995 (when as we know the same thing started happening mid-'95 with physicals) but I'm sure commentators noted the same trend back then. Interestingly, today's mids show no climbers (I think), and I'm not sure this is likely to change much as the week progresses. Could this be the first week in a *very* long time that nothing climbs? Is it premature to say that, like 1995-2006, climbers will soon be, largely, absent from the Top 40? A cursory check of recent charts show that over the last 6 weeks the Top 40 tracks genuinely climbing from within the Top 40, ie improving on their entry position, or going back up to match their peak position (not counting tracks that temporarily reverse their decline if they don't outdo their peak position), have been: 2, 2, 1, 6, 7, 2. I haven't time to check, but I'm fairly sure this would compare less favourably with 2009 and undoubtedly less favourably with 2008 and 2007. As I said previously, the past 3 weeks could be blip, or it could be that we are watching the 2010 version of the mid-'95 changes take place. It may be of course that we won't know for a year or so ... after all we still had the odd climber within the Top 40 (not to mention the odd record climbing to number 1) in the mid-'95 to 1998 era before number ones pretty much exclusively entered at the top from 1999-2006 signifying the ultra fast-moving, peak-entering Top 40 phase which in my view detracted from chart-watching. The slight anomaly in this period being mid-2002 and 2003 where, whilst climbers remained largely absent, singles tended to spend longer at number 1 with notable 3/4 weeks runs, and of course the Black Eyed Peas 6 week #1 run in 2003 with 'Where Is The Love'. Time will tell in 2010.

This is an interesting solution to something which some people clearly think is a problem and others don't. I personally find front-loaded singles annoying because they disrupt my enjoyment of the singles chart, although I appreciate that isn't on its own a good enough reason to introduce rules banning them or which dissuade record companies from such heavy marketing of singles before release. My own fear is that, with the change-over from physical to download pretty much now complete, climbers will once again start to disappear from the chart. I have enjoyed the charts recently because elements of movement/unpredictability have been reintroduced. The lack of slow-burners was one reason for my disillusion with the Top 40 from about 1998-2006; I was firmly in favour of the inclusion of downloads and indeed the current chart rules on eligibility partly because there was a chance this could (and emphatically did) reintroduce climbers from 2007 onwards. I think this has been good because it has led to more stability of number 1s (longer runs at the top - with no (in my view) tedious high number 1 turnovers a la 1999/2000/2001/2004/2005 and - so far - 2010) and less predictability as songs ascending from the depths to eventual higher peak positions. I'm probably in the minority, but I enjoyed 2007, 2008 and parts of 2009 because the charts slowed down. Now the late 90s/early 00s pattern of front-loading physical sales has effectively been transferred to downloads (and now physical sales are almost inconsequential, save X-Factor, charity singles etc.) it seems as if once again climbers and slow-burners will disappear. I first noticed this in the early part of last year with the increased number 1 turnover after Lily Allen's 4 week run at the top (the last time a single spent a month at number 1 ... now about 18 months ago ... is this likely to happen again anytime soon in the current climate?), although week-on-week climbers still appeared. In 2010 the number 1 turnover rate has increased further and on current trends climbers also seem to be disappearing. It is now up to a month since there were any highest climbers to speak of and in the past couple of weeks only a couple of tracks have improved on their entry positions. More and more singles are entering at their peak position. This could obviously just be a blip, but my point is that it may also be a sign of things to come given the signs and trends. I think this would be a shame for chart-watchers and for the singles chart in general (not, sadly, that it gets much exposure these days). I'm not sure anything can or should be done about it re: chart rules, but it just dismays me that (I suspect) fierce marketing is once again taking its toll on the Top 40. Again, I realize that not everyone will share these views. They are merely just some observations.