Gambo

It's ironic that where this was once a reasonably commonplace occurrence in the 2000s/'10s, nowadays it's far more likely that we'd see things the other way around - i.e. songs not officially issued as 'singles' still get into the charts. By this I mean those that are either heavily promoted through inclusion on a TV or film soundtrack, but which were never formally issued as a single per se (and never will be), or those which are already available on a parent album release, and while might be promoted as a single via radio, TV and online channels, actually can't be streamed or bought from a stand-alone single package as such (i.e. they can only be streamed or bought as a track from the album bundle). These scenarios occur increasingly commonly, what with Netflix shows suddenly catapulting older (sometimes non-single) songs into contemporary popularity, and the release of an album after issue of maybe two or three prequel singles, which I suppose renders it technically unnecessary to put any tracks from it that are later promoted as 'singles' out in a stand-alone single thereafter. An alternative strategy may be to issue a remixed/rerecorded edition of the original album version as a stand-alone single, while the original only remains available from the album. The one that always stands out in my memory as becoming ineligible for the charts was a song called 'Industry' by a band called The Modern, a sort of latter-day imitation of The Human League in style and sound. Issued on CD in March 2006, it was set for a Top 15 entry on release, but was rendered excludable at the last minute, I think owing to the OCC having detected what appeared to be some irregular and suspicious sales through certain stores, enough to justify not awarding it an official chart position. Quite a lot of singles were barred from charting due to known or strongly-suspected hyping attempts, as far back as the 1970s.

In truth I avoided posting any votes for Mariah and Wham! just because I assumed they'd outperform most other options, based on how they seem to do just that on the official charts nowadays. Sadly I fear that 'Christmas Wrapping' continues to miss out on a UK Top 40 placing just because it didn't manage one first or second time around in the early '80s. Had it been a bigger hit originally, it might've stood a better chance of sticking with people through the ensuing decades and thus perform better in current-day seasonal streaming tallies than it has (I also would guess being a tad more leftfield it isn't included on every preconceived playlist that many people passively rely on to play out a background of Christmassy hits). That said, it does seem to get a decent amount of airplay each Christmas, and so it seems that more recent generations have yet to fully take notice of it as they have done some other seasonal fodder which was released many years before their time

Surely we could cover a lot of individual examples here by just saying that any track that was never released officially as a 'single' per se (or only was after specific keen demand became apparent for the song following use in a popular TV or film vehicle etc) that went on to become a notable commercial/chart success qualifies as something which wasn't necessarily intended to be a 'hit', at least in its own right (so besides being a contributory factor to a parent album's popularity). Since the advent of the download era in particular we've seen innumerable examples of album-only non-singles go on to attain often quite prominent chart profiles, as it became possible to cherry-pick any song from a digital bundle regardless of whether it was (or later would be) released as a stand-alone single, and particularly once digital sales of all tracks not just those marketed as physical singles were permitted to become fully-chart-eligible. Lots of album tracks charted for just a week or two after the release of a hotly-tipped or eagerly-awaited artist's latest long-player (obvious examples include Ed Sheeran, Taylor Swift, Adele and Drake); sometimes every song on the album made its own impression (at least until chart rules were introduced to cap the number allowed to appear on the official published version of the Top 100 to just three). However, a few did sustain lengthy chart careers in tandem with the track that actually had been given the single release. I think Alan Jones used to refer to these as 'halo hits' in his MW commentaries. Some obviously were clear future singles-in-the-making, and were eventually given their release in that format, but only after they'd already racked up a pretty impressive chart presence and sales tally as just an album track (the most memorable example to my mind was Lady Gaga's 'Poker Face', which charted when the album was released but didn't receive a proper single issue for three months while its predecessor 'Just Dance' was still working through its peak chart career). There are many more however that were never intended to be singles, and indeed were never issued as such officially, even after a growing chart presence, making these simply album cuts (or possibly B-sides in a few cases) which just sold/streamed well in their own right presumably with no expectation on the part of either the artist or label that they would do. Perhaps this just goes to demonstrate how formal releasing as a single has become less and less relevant to determining which songs become chart hits, or whether or not a certain track might end up doing very well. Promotion of a song - be that by the record label through the traditional media of radio and television, more recently via direct artist promos through their website or social media platform, the unexpected random usage of that title to soundtrack a very popular film or TV series, and/or adoption en masse by ordinary folk as a backing track for self-produced viral videos (TikTok etc) - has always been a notable factor in helping to determine whether it will become a commercial success. It's never been a dead-cert guarantee - there's been many flops despite great promos and media interest - but, even in the physical-only era, having your song on a film soundtrack, on an ad, as well as airing on radio and later TV, could really boost its chances in the charts, and often led to reissues of older songs as singles and them being bigger hits than they'd ever been. In the digital world, with access to so much more music including all catalogue acts as well as currently-active artists' product, inevitably these aspects, alongside being able to catch on and go viral either through deliberate attempts or by genuine accident, adds hugely to a song's potential fortunes. A number of tracks which have graced the 2020s charts were never singles originally or expected to be hits in their own right, but years later being picked up for a long-running and mass-binged TV series for example really did propel these hitherto-little-known recordings into major chart hit territory. And still they never actually became available, or were specifically promoted as, singles. Off the top of my head, Djo's 'End Of Beginning' I think fits these criteria.

Such an interesting exchange of views about the charts - mostly let's face it the singles rather than albums - which for all its perceived faults I'm grateful to this article for kick-starting. Yes, we've all read similar-sounding pieces of throwaway media before, and we've all entered into debates that inevitably ensue among music lovers as to how worthwhile, relevant, necessary or accurate the charts are, to both the modern consumer or industry insider, especially given the amount of massaging the official Top 100s have nowadays. But broadly, I think this one does capture the dilemma about charts quite effectively, both for those of us 'in the know' and the vast majority of its readers who are not, and the content that wrongly or rightly occupies them (which is always such a subjective matter and one which is seldom borne out by sales/streams tallies or weekly chart performance). One should dismiss all the indulgent journalese nonsense, but not necessarily the underlying supportable points that it actually seeks to underscore. For example, the over-exaggeration of what are perfectly valid points about occasional chart domination due to en-masse and often 'passive' streaming and the dwindling of traditional sales, as we've seen with Ed Sheeran on several occasions (in 2024 his chart white-outs might seem less prevalent, but after all, the man's the reason why we have the tiresome but arguably relevant rules now in play that manipulate chart rankings into something the industry would rather see, as opposed to the real but more stagnant reality), and the pseudo-vox-pop pap of citing two randoms from N Ireland's current take on music that do in fact lay out two worthwhile perspectives on the issue, if looked at in more generalised terms. I'm no 'Guardian' reader, but this is by far not their worst bit of copy on the topic we all share some interest in, however much we've fallen in or out of love with it and the music/artistry it represents; to my mind at least its positives outweigh its negatives. It is not the laziest (it at least cites the key distinctions that did affect its fortunes, such as the bungled iterative integration of download sales alongside those of physical singles, and later the hurried and fundamentally arbitrary combining of two entirely different modes of track consumption - sales and streams - both concisely and accurately) and does set out for the layman the general difference between what is classifiable as 'chart' music in the 2020s and what preceded it, hitting upon some very salient developments along that journey. Its text certainly doesn't anger me or make me feel as if it's not a wide-scale likely representation of how charts - and therefore what passes for 'popular' music - are perceived by different demographic cohorts now, as opposed to the simpler situations that perhaps prevailed in decades past when the concept of 'pop' - and of 'charts' - were newer, and still that bit more vital, individual, straightforward, and so relevant (though critically not necessarily more accurate as a barometer of what product was actually being most monetised). If I had the perfect balanced and sensible 'answer' to how to resolve the chart's inherent clash between wanting to mirror reality in market terms and needing to present a more 'rationalised' rundown which airbrushes out or paints-down the less-desirable by-products that integrating one form of consumption alongside another has caused, I'd be touting it far and wide and probably asking the OCC for a job! However, like most of us, I don't have that ideal solution; what's done is done, and in many ways I think things have gone too far now to rectify, almost irrespective of who really knows or cares about the faults. The charts will endure for many years to come, but I fear the wider public's indifference to them will only deepen too. And that's before we even start to debate the relative perceived merits of current acts and tracks, inevitably versus those of the past. What I find interesting - even amusing - is how individuals' own recollection of the music of their youth (good or bad by objective metrics) and the way the charts reflected this (right or wrong depending on validity of compilation methodology etc) seeps through into their comments on the way these things operate today. That's not to say any of those views herein expressed are 'incorrect' or even 'irrelevant'; far from it. Yet, while we all can see music and its measurements slightly differently, in general, it has to be said that many people tend towards seeing what prevailed in their childhood or adolescence as being somehow preferable to what rules now. Maybe that is often very arguable, but in a world where a lot rests on opinion rather than scientific fact, it doesn't insulate their viewpoints and ways in which they express these from easy pot-shots by those who disagree or don't recognise them who allege that they're merely donning the rose-tinted spectacles when it comes to this subject, and sadly that can in some eyes reduce credibility or validity of those narratives. That doesn't render them 'wrong'. But the fact is, however people of many different age groups might now reject or criticise the current charts, or the material that makes up their rather arbitrary positions, the truth is, they still care, even if it is because they believe fings ain't wot vey used t'be! They - we - hold a view that somehow what is current is lesser, and what was past (at least in selective parts) is greater. Thing is, if one could speak to any chart or music fan from the last six decades, they'd probably all proclaim likewise, to greater or lesser degrees. Someone might wish to make a note to bump this thread again in another ten, 20, 30 years, as its contents will almost certainly be just as relevant!

Don't normally bother to comment on these, especially when it's personal opinion involved, but really folks, Aitch and D-Block Europe - it's hard to imagine a worse combination of musically monotonous acts!

It would, of course, have excluded all but three tracks from new albums by one artist in any given week, which is the main reason ACR was introduced in the first place, to avoid total takeovers of single artists across the published chart, and especially in the upper echelons usually in the first week or so of release. Besides the most infamous occasion where this white-out happened with the release of Ed Sheeran's 'Divide' in March 2017, I note that Drake's number of Top 100 'hits' would have been vastly curtailed had ACR been in play during 2015 and '16, as all his brief album track entries bar three would've been starred-out. And although I fundamentally have to question the artificial manipulation of the chart presented to us as consumers - and so ACR doesn't sit well with me in principle - in practice, I must admit that this fact alone would've made me a happier man chart-wise! I'm fairly certain it would've limited the run of the inexplicably popular 'One Dance' too, albeit perhaps through one of those odd scenarios where the official chart-topper was actually neither the most sold or most streamed track of the prior seven days.

This really does depend on how one defines the term 'musician'. If it's a more casual, relaxed definition, then even those who aren't professional players, singers or producers could qualify, whether or not they've had just a one-off or more frequent dabblings with commercial success. But for the stricter, more precise end of the definition, it pretty-much rules out any individual who has not been either formally trained in instrumental or vocal capabilities, or otherwise become self-taught to a good standard. There is a school of musical thought and musicianship more widely which doesn't really recognise most of the 'pop' of the last 70 years as having any great musical qualities at all, because they always set it against classical composition and performance, which is of a very different and more complex format and so probably shouldn't bear comparison with what now passes for a four-minute popular song derived from the 'rock' foundations of the 1950s that speaks routinely about basic human emotions like love. But it's that simplicity, ease and brevity that renders that huge canon of similarly-derived work so appealing to the everyday listener, whereas classical stirs emotion and wonder but takes rather more brainspace and determination to fully appreciate it. It's not really fair to always compare these two very diverse forms of music. Saying that, the latter definition above would rule out a lot of acts who are by their own admission 'producers' who really just feel their way in music, have some ideas, and know how to operate machinery and utilise technology that wrongly or rightly allows them to express these, albeit often of an unoriginal or unsophisticated form. Or otherwise they're one-off chancers in the vocal booth - these days so readily assisted by auto-tune software. Innumerable chart successes have been born of this kind of 'DIY' ethic that people would associate initially with punk in that one needn't be a virtuoso player or singer, but in the decades since has been whittled down to include people who frankly still can't really play or sing live, but whose pre-recorded productions are enough to become viable hits. One has to query the true musicianship of some in that style. If however we just stick to the former, very broad definition, where anyone who's been involved with musical performance irrespective of training, experience, or even natural ability/talent, but who somehow ended up producing or contributing towards a meaningful hit or hits, then we may be far more generous and less exclusive about which acts qualify for the hall of fame. Alas, the charts have never been a useful or consistent barometer that measures the relative quality of composition or live performance, which has led to numerous songs (and acts) of little musical worth scoring high, and perhaps less comfortably, those of considerable quality instrumentally, lyrically and in overall production terms, failing to ever access the weekly rankings. Equally though there has been plenty of excellent stuff that has scaled the heights and a lot of crap that hasn't. I think that will always be the case.

Clearly, when one looks beyond the now-reduced-in-relevance metric of the weekly singles charts, and even beyond the increasingly-small albums equivalent, and takes into account wider internet appeal, success in live performances, sales of merchandise, support from other media such as radio and television, bands are not dead, or even dying. Granted, their profile on the current singles chart is more minimal than it probably ever has been in pop history, which is what's making observers feel as if the concept itself must be old-fashioned, increasingly irrelevant, or at worst on its death bed. But that trend is due in part to the wider reasons that explain why the now-dominant consumption method of music - streaming - tends to favour genres and acts that are not guitar/rock-based, and that consumers of the latter tend to be less-streaming-led and more sales-driven. And the majority of bands, whether they be pure guitar or more mixed in their sound, tend to fall into those categories, whereas those genres which (rightly or wrongly) tend to do well in streaming (and therefore in the singles sector) such as rap/hip-hop/drill etc and to a surprising extent dance, are more-often-than-not acts made up of a singular or perhaps dual-person production-based outfit, with varying vocal collaborators, which can't really be categorised as a 'band'. It is certainly true that these don't dominate in quite the same way in the albums market, which is less-streaming-influenced in overall numbers and reflects the more traditional sales-led market - that market is evidently steadily shrinking, but it is very responsive to one-week wonders where even a relatively modest fanbase of a fairly niche artist can briefly score very highly with a new long-player. And in that regard, it's clear bands still have considerable traction. They won't make anywhere near as much money from that source as they once did. But as I said earlier, there is the live performance and merch streams to consider, which are now probably bigger revenue sources even for small-time starter groups, as well as the longstanding big-time outfits (although the latter type will often have hugely successful back catalogues from the sales-dominated era and have such cross-generational familiarity that even their weekly streaming keeps delivering decent-enough dollar for them - hardly the case for new acts alas). As said above, we do probably need to free ourselves from the once-fairly-sound presumption that for a certain type of act, style, genre, whatever to be regarded as broadly successful in the commercial music markets, there'd need to have been at least a few prominent bona fide 'hits' on the singles side in order for us to legitimately consider them to be categorised that way. Even then, there have been scores of acts who were never commercially successful in single or album terms, yet live long in memories and hearts due to their particular context and cultural impact they had at the time of their creative peaks. But when measuring by commercial impact alone, some sort of singles success needed to be evidenced, even if there'd been only modest incursion into the albums charts. Now, in the age of mass-streaming across millions of different titles and artists, packaged over numerous different album, single and mini-album/EP bundles, clearly it's far more conceivable to have a very impactful success over many months/years on streaming and yet never achieve any great dents in the weekly tallies. It's true that most streaming is of the titles beneath the Top 100, and the proportion of the streaming total each week made up by those 100 is now vanishingly small. This isn't due to the three-track-per artists cap or ACR rules either - the 'real' combined Top 200 weekly tracks chart is even more clogged and slow-moving than the manipulated published variant and doesn't see songs from more niche genres score higher peaks - indeed they are far lower, as all the mass-streamed old hits are given a chart position and so squeeze down the lower-profile and newer releases even more. As this is now a far more meaningful measure of 'success' or of 'hit' status than in the sales era, it should now be given due prominence when properly assessing an act or a title's impact overall, or indeed the relevance of a certain style of music or configuration of artist. I concede that moving people away from the singles chart as the main means of ready measurement of 'success' or 'relevance' will be a tough ask, especially among casual listeners and older demographics for whom that has been the primary point of reference for discerning 'hits' all their lifetimes. But evidently if one is to offer a more sound commentary on this issue, one needs to look far less carefully at singles chart history (or lack of) and much more at the overall streaming tallies to date, and perhaps what the average typical streaming numbers look like over time, especially for those uncharted-yet-enduring songs. Personally, I have never logged-on to TikTok, and as a non-social media user in general I am perhaps instinctively somewhat suspicious of its increasing dominance in influencing younger consumers' musical listening choices, and the way it seems of late to be an almost essential element for a song if it is to achieve a more persuasive and long-term crossover success and make a profound impact on the singles charts. Yet I am bound to agree with someone who earlier on in this thread made the point that while the process can be somewhat random as to what gets picked up and made viral through the site, it does at least seem genre and act-agnostic when one looks at the surprising breadth of artists, types, and ages of song that it has helped propel towards the charts, which has surely assisted in creating a little more diversity of music in a singles scene that pre-TT was looking worrying stagnant, predictable, limited and repetitious. Alas I believe all those descriptions still apply to the chart each week, but sudden take-offs of any kind of song or act you could think of through TT, or in alignment with a big commercial TV production perhaps, that don't conform to the usual sort of dross that routinely makes the published charts, do help punctuate things, whether or not I personally like the titles in question. And it is through these means, if no other, that we can at least occasionally see bands as well as solo/duo/mixed collaborating acts get a chart berth. Thank God they aren't solely reliant any more on achieving that though, as there's no question it's harder for a new outfit of any sort to attain a singles chart profile without some kind of outside and often unplanned media/internet support - and yes, being a band or group rather than a solo act probably will make it harder-still. Like may on this thread, I really hope that with the passage of time, and inevitable shifts in the consumer market and the shape of the wider scene, this changes for the better. Where would we have been without those now-hugely-heralded bands of the past?

It is a phenomenal effort just in the copying, collating, typing and posting these original chart Gallup/BMRB reports, and it should be clear for those interested in these over on UKMix but don't know the history that it couldn't have happened without three key chartographers of our time - Robbie himself who does the posting, KingofSkiffle who does the collation and database elements, and most importantly Kobyhadrian, who originally obtained all the reports from the BPI and spent Lord-knows how many man hours typing them up into a presentable form! They have between them summoned up a very thorough and as accurate as is available database of panel sales activity across almost two decades' worth of singles chart history, and the quality and consistency of the results now being steadily made accessible to us all can't be underestimated. I'm keen that fellow chart travellers on BuzzJack are aware of this if ever they investigate these chart reports and make use of them. Yes, it still leaves us bereft of such detailed data for the three most recent decades since Millward Brown have been at the helm of official chart compilation, and of course the pre-1976 era when popular music as we know it truly established itself. But we've got to be grateful for what we get, and tolerate the reality that there'll almost certainly always be significant gaps where there is far less data, or none at all, accessible to us. Anything like exact weekly or monthly panel sales reports from the latter period probably no longer exist and the further one goes back, the less accurate any data becomes; as to the former, there will be much accurate and useful sales information stored, but unless we ever have the luxury of someone posting Millward Brown original reports, or somebody gets rare (and ludicrously expensive!) access to the OCC's database, one has to doubt that those decades will ever be covered in the same depth chart-wise as the 1976-'94 canon. So we're lucky even to now have that.

A fascinating topic I've only just caught up with, and one which underlines why I've never quite embraced streaming in the way I'd have perhaps liked - i.e. because there'd eventually always be annoying gaps that may never get filled, regardless of the genre, era or other basis on which one might compile playlists. I compiled best-selling singles Top 100s for the 2010s, 2000s, 1990s and 1980s, and managed to fill most positions for each decade, but there were some obvious missing hits and yes, mostly from the charity world, which I suppose one can understand. It's the regular songs that are missing that are oddities - or worse-still those which apparently have featured on Spotify but no longer do, for no obvious reason. Perhaps even more disappointing is thinking you've found what you need for a playlist, only to find it's the wrong version (so not the standard 7" mix usually played by radio/TV). I find my local pub jukebox does this and we all need to be very careful if using it to try and triple-check that the version you're picking isn't some 12" mix, album version, live version, remix or rerecording - even with the greatest care one can still get it wrong and waste 15p! No idea what the new streaming arrival is but however awful some of these songs are, they should nevertheless be accessible, to satisfy things like 'greatest hits' playlists, and to ensure the format is considered credible and inclusive of almost all well-known songs ever recorded.

I'm still idly wondering how many of the 712 viewers of this thread readily swallowed it?! ;)

What I didn't initially understand about this particular streams-based retrospective rundown was why it excluded the 2000s and 2010s, and also for that matter (arguably more outlandishly) the 1960s or even 1950s. But then the penny dropped that it was compiled entirely for Greatest Hits Radio who only play music from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, so clearly it was a very specialised list which they insisted stuck to their playlisting criteria. I still think Christmas or other seasonal/speciality songs should've been included though, even for a chart that's only narrowed to a particular thirty-year period of the past. Whatever the arguments as to how many would've charted inside this Top 300 and how high, one must suspect that at least a few would've amassed sufficient online listens in the streaming era (so presumably if OCC compiled this we're talking just over the last ten years to January 2014 when streaming data begins to officially be counted, albeit we know they compiled streaming data for over 18 months prior to that as they used to publish a weekly Top 40 streaming chart) to have registered here and there across the chart. Provided they weren't maxing-out the Top 10 or 20, and there weren't too many positions taken up with tunes that would sound bizarre and unwelcome if played across a regular Easter weekend in March, surely they could just have skipped over them, i.e. announce the song and the position it occupied, then explaining for obvious reasons it doesn't feel appropriate to play it now, and move on to the next entry which carries more universal appeal to their audience. Instead, they broadcast a chart that might've had some use and relevance as a gauge of what is enduringly popular from the last three decades of the 20th century via streaming, but as-is, was subject to arbitrary exclusions of certain types of song, and so carries far less gravitas, at least to the purist. Then again, as it's OCC, we should know by now that of course any chart they're allowing to be broadcast will've been subject to manipulation!!

One thing I have been told by someone who is similarly interested in seeing the real-world singles charts, but unlike most of us has had the benefit of actually seeing a few over the years, is that the lack of exclusions of en-masse-streamed new album tracks through the three-track-per-artist cap, and the forcing downwards of many older hits and artificial uplifts of newer ones via ACR, the real Top 200 chart does get very clogged up with short-lived non-singles, and ageing but still-regularly-playlisted titles hang around even longer than they do on the manipulated version of the rankings. I appreciate that this is an obvious observation anyone could guess at, knowing the nature of the Jul '17 rules and reasons for their introduction. But the point is, having seen a selection of Top 200s since, he reminded me that they are in fact mostly very stagnant, and suffer from the sudden oddities of LP tracks making huge but brief impacts - they are not mirrors of the sort of Top 200s we enjoyed in the 'pure' sales-only era when all formats were eligible (Jan '07 to Jun '14), where there was a more reasonable mix of chart behaviours and movements that created more diversity and therefore more interest, but without too many extreme odd outliers that made it look disproportionate (such as those which streaming being included has created). Those songs you'd found making some impacts for a week or more in those 101-200 positions on sales only in the pre-streaming period almost certainly now won't be able to make enough of an impact to appear in the equivalent ranks now, as so many millions of listens are now needed to reach even the unadjusted position of 200, and with actual paid sales contributing so little to most tracks' chart traction. Indeed, I think it was Alan Jones who reported recently that the amount of total weekly streams that are made up the Top 75 official chart titles are "vanishingly small", as inevitably so many of people's listens are derived from a vaster-than-ever catalogue of music past and present, meaning that only a few handfuls of titles garner enough to accrue streams into the six or seven-figure realms in seven days, with most of the 25 million-or so listens/watches online each chart week are divided up between millions of songs attaining just two, three, four-figure tallies, which can never chart, even under the current rules. So my point here is that it would likely be a disappointment for those expecting to see more of their preferred singles getting a chart position at least on the 'real' Top 200 - the reality nowadays is that they are LESS likely to achieve it there than on the manipulated published chart - and that would still be the case even if they'd elected to retain that listing as a 200 rather than truncate it to just the 100 berths. That won't of us course dampen enthusiasm for seeing the true Top 200s based on actual most-consumed titles in a week if one's main motivation is not to see more of one's own liked songs get a chart profile, but rather just to see what the real weekly positions (and peaks) of every title are, free of restrictive and misleading arbitrary eligibility rules. But right now, I think the chances of getting that information, either retrospectively or from some point in future, are sadly somewhere between 'fat' and 'no'!

I have thought further about this and have decided that for now the manipulated published chart must (and in all reality probably will) remain as-is, for all its faults, but ideally, someone somewhere should start obtaining the 'real' Top 200 tracks charts from OCC dating back to July 2017 and leak them to us!

I'd say anything that reaches the published official Top 100 chart, for all its current faults and shortcomings. But not everybody is aware of or bothers to engage with the fuller charts, especially nowadays, so of course many will now disagree. Obviously I am basing my opinion on the presumption that we just consider the term 'hit' to relate to charts and peak positions, which inevitably only tell a partial picture, and as others have noted, increasingly-so in an era of enduring streams over time which may not always translate into a significant chart profile for a track in any given week, but over time amass a relatively impressive to-date tally that in the sales-only era no track attaining such modest chart peaks would ever be likely to achieve, even in the digital period when tracks became available indefinitely as a catalogue product (as opposed to their physical counterparts whose sales power was finite thanks to stocks expiring or deletion). Clearly overall sales, or streams for titles released more recently, carry a significant role in measuring whether or not they were a 'bona fide' hit, as these screen-out the one-week wonders that may have charted high due to an event or a charitable cause, but don't endure and ultimately don't accrue bigger numbers in either sector of consumption. The context of a short-term big streams or sales splash should always be borne in mind when deciding whether a high-charting record should really be determined a 'proper' hit. One could develop the concept further and start measuring other types of a song's impact and achievement, say by numbers of followers online, usage in TV/movies, reception at live performances, radio play and so on, which can help determine the wider cultural impact a song may have in time. But for me that is a slightly different evaluation and it's easier, and I suspect more commonly understood, if we refrain from expanding what constitutes a 'hit' too widely and restrict it to the song's commercial performance - as reflected by overall streaming and sales tallies, and to an extent weekly chart peaks and longevity in the published charts which people en masse can access. If we do so, the greater number of people will have a more easily-defined and consistent notion of what can be classified as true hit material and what should not be. I don't have any empirical evidence, but I do suspect that most casual music lovers would likely still define the term very simply, i.e. whether a song attained a position on the main chart - even if it's just for a week and due to a very specific impetus rather than a more long-lived organic success. The only variable would be the size of the chart which people would feel represents a genuine hit over a miss - so some would say Top 10, 20, maybe 40, as these remain the most publicised and talked-about echelons of the weekly rankings.