Gambo

Going back rather further to the pre-digital era, I recall 'Go' by Pearl Jam was ineligible for the singles chart on grounds that the label were giving away a free cassette of a live track with the 12" vinyl, insisting that that format only be sold with its CD and cassette counterparts, thereby deliberately ensuring disqualification from the official listing as stores couldn't get away with selling one of the other formats separately. Famously the release even carried a sticker saying something like "this single is ineligible for 'the only chart that counts'"! For some arcane reason they were very keen to ensure that this new song would never feature in British chart history, but given Pearl Jam's fanbase size and expanded cult popularity as co-progenitors, alongside Nirvana, of the still-viable 'grunge' sound since release of their first album, chances are sales of this single as the lead from the second LP 'Vs' would've been sufficient to gain a Top 20, if not Top 10 position in its first week out (it was issued 25 Oct '93). Sales figures for chart entries weren't generally reported back then, but when one considers the average sale during that year for a single to make Top 10 was 17,400 and Top 20 10,325, this seems supportable, and given that the band's lead single from their third album 'Spin The Black Circle' made No 10 first week one year later, it seems all the more likely. I appreciate this thread is about songs that were completely ruled ineligible from the charts for whatever reasons, but of course there have been numerous singles down the decades which were awarded chart positions, but only based on a certain part of their reported sales - so releases where a format was ruled ineligible as it was not yet included in calculating the charts (all CD singles before 1987 for example), or because their dealer price was too low (the classic case there being Kylie's 'Hand On Your Heart' whose initial week of cassette sales were debarred from the chart on this basis and at around 10k are believed to have been enough to have placed the song at No 1 rather than 2), again ended up with an incomplete and unrepresentative showing in the charts.

Note that from August 1993 the No 1s on the Network Chart will match those of the official CIN chart, as a decision was made to align the Top 10 of the former will the latter, so in effect the Network (or 'Pepsi' chart as it had become by then to reflect their sponsorship arrangement) was split between a sales-only official Top 10 and airplay-cum-sales unofficial Bottom 30 (although I think from this point as part of the deal the compilation of the chart was overseen by CIN and later OCC).

Although 'Rolling In The Deep' had only been released on 17 January 2011 as lead single and was receiving associated promotion, many sources including Discogs record the release date of 'Someone Like You' as a stand-alone single on download as being 24 January 2011. Obviously that corresponds with the release date of the parent album '21' and so it would also have been available to download from the digital release of that, but it does seem that it was given its own discrete issue a week after its predecessor, possibly for the reasons Bre gives regarding its already-well-received live performances before the BRITS 2011. So in fact the answer is yes, technically it was already a 'single' ahead of the BRITS performance, albeit one that wasn't being directly promoted at that point. Incidentally, Discogs records the release of the live BRITS version of the song on download as being 17 March 2011; for chart purposes its sales of course would've been combined with the original single and album track tallies as per OCC rules.

It is encouraging to see some consumer value being placed on CD singles once again, albeit in a fraction of specific cases and in an obviously niche market - let's not pretend that this represents anything like a mass comeback for the format per se. But without sounding like I'm now benefiting from the gift of hindsight, I think we probably should've seen this coming. The enduring appeal, at least among very keen fans of certain musical acts and collectors of associated merchandise, of a physical release is that it is tangible, and feels more worthwhile and authentic than a virtual product which, while it has all the space-saving convenience and versatility at a cheap price, inevitably feels clinical and lacks any sort of presence or appeal as a collectors' item. The download - and even more so the audio/video online stream which isn't even owned but rented - is there for pure simplicity and ease of access/portability. For that small but significant sector of the singles market who prefers to literally buy in to their favourite artists, physical will always retain a certain cachet, and if it's succeeded not just on the always much-missed vinyl 7" experience but also more recently on the once-massively-derided microcassette, then I guess logically after a certain period without them, the compact disc will also begin to present itself as another alternative way of tangibly owning a single song, with all the added benefits of artwork, possibly extra tracks etc that fanbase collectors will want, even if it means owning the same recording on two, three or even four formats (plus probably having the track on a streaming site playlist). After more than a decade where CD singles were almost extinct and deemed irrelevant, the nostalgia market - often those who were children or adolescents when the format was in its heyday or at least the norm - are now primed to seek out occasional examples on the format where they are available. Let's face it, in the albums sector, physical - and mostly CD - still accounts for a significant if minority stake in the market (around 15-18%) and the concept never died out in the way that almost happened with singles. The nigh-on 20-year presumption that one would now only bother buying a CD if it's a long-player is starting to be challenged and that can only be a positive thing, despite recognition that virtual digital product will always remain the dominant means through which music is consumed. It feels comforting to have a bit of diversity and availability of more rarefied formats for those more deeply engaged in music than just passive entry-level listens on a casual, free 'n' easy basis.

Plus ONE more week almost certainly in the Top 100 had it existed ahead of its initial chart entry in the 50 on the chart of week-ending Sat 5 Apr (why the OCC site is defaulting to the following Tuesday I don't know)! I've tracked 'My Way's release date to Fri 21 Mar '69, meaning its first couple of days on sale could've been sufficient for an appearance at 51st to 100th bestseller for the chart use week ending Sat 28 Mar (which the OCC now stupidly would date as Tue 1 Apr). Still doesn't alter its position in the overall list, but you know, just saying.

Then if that is indeed the case they should remove the link if they don't want any further responses. Again, poor website management and lack of consistent communication. Why waste people's time trying to complete it if it's no longer available? Just thank those who've participated and take it down. I am not too fussed that I didn't get to air my views as I daresay all my comments will've been fed back by other disgruntled users who did manage to complete the survey before it was locked-down. But I would be surprised if they took any of the more complex ideas on board. I don't think they have either time or inclination to really drill down into the problems and while we're obviously keen to engage in the hope of improving their data management etc, I don't think that's what they are really after from this. If we're lucky, we might see some minor tinkering which could improve the efficiency or appearance of the site itself.

Ha-haa; classic OCC website - just tried entering the link to their survey and it returned a message thanking me for my interest but it's now closed. Yet the Ts and Cs below state that the latest one can enter the competition to win Amazon vouchers (which can presumably only be entered by completing their survey) is 9am Tuesday 29th June, over a week hence! It's this very kind of glitchiness and conflicting messaging that's p*ssing most people off about their site (before we get into the deeper debates about how they present and manage their data, errors and inconsistencies in reportage and so on).

^ Completely convincing and many would've bought into it I'm sure! Frankly had the OCC announced some of their present rules around 1st April as opposed to early July I might've assumed they were Fools' Day send-ups!!

I'm pleased to hear that, if only because it means more people are following the official numbers, for all the skew that's baked into them these days courtesy of OCC rules. Though might this figure include listens via catch-up on demand rather than just those for the original live broadcast?

Insofar as certain acts will care about their chart record, I would imagine they'll always take some note if they're doing well on the alternative 'Big Top 40' (especially if they get called to chat about - and thereby help promote - their current single release on the Sunday show), but ultimately most would be aware that the chart that history will record as being relevant (and the one used to source information about an act's chart history that will appear in chart reference, Wikipedia entries and so on) will be the OCC's official Top 40 in radio terms, 75 in Music Week terms and 100 in online archive terms. Whatever its rules and flaws, it clearly represents a far deeper measure of the national singles/tracks market than any competitors, and so provides a broader picture of the impact a song is having across a range of relevant measures, however awkwardly they are combined into a single tabulation and despite the artificialisation of the ranking as a by-product of its rules. Most artists will be cognisant of the basics and certainly their labels and promoters will be - for whom the actual chart profile and peak position possibly counts more than it does to the artist themselves, as to an extent it is a reflection of how successful their paid efforts are in boosting the commercial fortunes of the artists they represent. The Big Top 40 is a sideshow based mostly on Apple iTunes downloads, Music streams and presumably just Global radio airplay - hardly a complete set of sources to measure wider popularity of a track. Most artists will doubtless be gracious if doing well on it (particularly where they're not able to enjoy such a high rank on the official listings as it at least gives them a bit more of a platform - we repeatedly see that with tracks doing well on sales but whose streams are lacking) and I'm sure are good enough to never make any comment on the official chart or a direct comparison between the validity of that over its alternative. For all the lack of credibility in the compilation process of the BT40 though, and aside from what acts appearing within it really think about it, I do wonder whether it now garners more interest, and is more relevant, to a lot of listeners who still bother tuning in to a chart-based broadcast with any regularity? For a kick-off there is the reality that a lot of them, especially kids, don't really care if the positions are fully-supportable and based on the broadest data available; it's more about the fun of the reveal and hoping to find their favourite songs higher-up (I should say that certainly was the case among young listeners in the '80s when the rival Network Chart sprang up on ILR stations to compete with Radio 1 - only the real chart enthusiasts such as myself cared to argue for the case that only the official chart really counted for anything!). Moreover, isn't it now probable that more people end up hearing the BT40 rundown than the official, simply because it still sits in that traditional Sunday afternoon slot, which for many is still a more conducive time to follow a live unveiling of a new chart than a Friday afternoon? Although I've personally always defaulted to the official one and when a regular listener I slavishly stuck with R1 to the complete exclusion of its ILR alternative, ironically, nowadays, if ever I happen to hear a chart show (usually by chance rather than a deliberate effort to tune in especially for it), it's almost always the Big rather than the official Top 40, for that reason. I can and sometimes do switch to R1's 'First Look' for an official 'midweek' live update, but that is so often just a boring reshuffle of the previous week's positions and I can't deny that the Global version feels more lively, playing more diverse stuff as it's more sales-driven than streaming. I pay no mind to the actual positions and movements, but however irrelevant these are, it does at least make for a more interesting and changeable listen. Due to the stagnation brought about by streaming and the skews of ACR etc I often wish the official combined Top 40 more closely resembled the makeup of the official sales one, and when I look at it objectively, the BT40 more-or-less does do that, albeit in a half-arsed, corny ILR style and being entirely unofficial, despite its obvious attempts through its titling to try and present itself as somehow having some sort of official status.

Thanks KOS for posting these and an ample demonstration of just how embedded the held-back, front-loaded tactic in marketing singles had become by the late '90s and how dominant it remained until the mid '00s. I presume it would've dug-in even longer had it not been for the complete shift in consumer preference from CD to download during the late '00s, and later from download to streaming, which most would agree has unfortunately taken chart turnover and movement too far back the other way. Thank God this entry-at-peak behaviour was broken in the end though; surely we were heading for nigh-on brand new Top 10s or even 20s almost every week! So much damage was done to the conceptual reputation and perceived relevance of the UK chart during that time, as it was seen - correctly - that marketing might had taken over completely and bent consumer habits to suit its will, thereby skewing the more natural chart patterns of behaviour seen prior to the '90s. Saying that, whatever one's preference, that period saw some very lofty sales figures logged on the back of this approach, at least up the early '00s when physical took its final dive and digital was yet to be legalised. A fair number of the one or two-place rises seen during the affected period were likely just due to a quiet market that week (even during such a frenetically busy era of weekly turnover we did get the odd uneventful week for new releases). If one scrutinises the Music Week charts of the time which used to denote which singles in the Top 75 had posted a sales increase week-on-week, one would likely find many of those so-called 'climbers' actually gained a higher chart foothold on falling sales. Needless to say, there were singles that did the opposite in very hectic big-selling weeks - they'd fall from their entry position but did so on rising sales. A factor that's not been highlighted above as far as I could see was the occasional premature entry of a single ahead of its official release date, owing apparently to small numbers of sales accruing in the days leading up to it through in-store 'leaks'. Steps' single in Jan '01 was a classic example - and the inorganic climb it registered on its second week charted after it'd been issued officially gave it what was then (still might be though would need to check) the highest within the 75 ever seen, of 70 places. Another post-new year example of this was a year later when Puretone's 'Addicted To Bass' logged a 66-place rise to No 2. Outside the 75 threshold, Westlife's cover of 'Mandy' is often cited in this context too, as it appeared on leaked sales at No 200 before climbing all the way to No 1 with its full release a week later, though arguably this doesn't compare, given the 76-200 positions were subject to exclusions and so in reality 'Mandy' would've been some way off the actual 200th bestselling single on its leaked buys alone. There were also the odd deliberate little marketing spins operated by labels too. Probably the most obvious was Parlophone's decision to deliberately circumvent the OCC's newly-inaugurated rule on allowing downloads but only where there was an equivalent physical product on release in respect of their Gorillaz single 'Feel Good Inc'. They issued a limited edition vinyl 7" on 11 Apr '05 allowing it to chart at No 22 W/E 23 Apr based on the vinyl and download releases alone. The former quickly fell away but the latter were chart-eligible due to the presence of a physical issue, and sufficient to keep the song hovering around the No 20 position for 3 weeks until it leapt up to No 2 W/E 21 May, following full CD release on 9 May. I still can't get my head around 'Amazed' by Lonestar though! Why was that song more-or-less the only single to buck the prevailing pattern and stick around for such an extended period, never getting into the Top 20? Such an oddity and more akin to what we see in current charts.

Sadly nowadays I think you'd have to extend the show to the Top 200 to get any significant exposure from it for less well-represented acts and genres!

Very interesting indeed and thanks for posting. If only we could now say, 37 years on, that all these issues surrounding official chart compilation had been thoroughly and transparently ironed-out! While it's not the same bag of problems that challenged Gallup in '84 that trouble Kantar in '21, it still feels like there are numerous complications in bringing a chart to a satisfactory conclusion and presenting in a way that manages (some might say 'massages') the vagaries of the current market, which are so much more complex than in the '80s thanks to the digital revolution and diverse means of consuming our music. I'd like to see a similar article by Godfrey's current successor aimed at demystification of some of the present chart concerns, but I shan't hold my breath! PS: I wonder whether they published that in a bid to defend their reputation pre-emptively at a time when ILR stations were just about to launch a serious competitor to the official countdown? The Network Chart began I think on Sun 30 Sep '84!

Seemingly all back to normal now by the way folks - all the singles and albums charts I tried to view loaded up all right. Only a matter of time though before it starts to go glitchy again. It is a very unreliable site in terms of everyday operation. And then there's the fair criticisms about the layout and accessing of certain information. For example they still don't post a link on the singles to the video or overall streaming charts. I also find the archive very annoying in that the search you perform must be word-perfect; it's not dynamic enough to pick up likely typos or misspellings.

Interesting thread. I'm sure it's been posted previously and I haven't read every contribution, but generally all guitar-rock-based acts (many of whom actually even struggled to make the transition convincingly from physical to digital paid-for sales in the late 2000s), and also boy/girl solo or group-style pop (the few big-hitters of the 2005-'11 'X Factor' era managed a decent run in the first half of the 2010s when actual sales were still king, but since streaming dominance exerted itself have generally struggled to achieve any notable main singles chart placings). While there's a fair few acts whose music may not be missed by many in the current charts, they've arguably been replaced by a lot of dross that as many of us or more dislike even more! Some may celebrate the nigh-on clean sweep that grime/drill/trap/rap acts now enjoy in the Top 100 (and let's face it these sub-genres and their predecessors already performed pretty consistently well on sales even before streaming took over), some will bemoan the lack of distinction between most of the actual songs in terms of production, style and delivery, and it would make for a very monotonous long listen if one were to stream each one of the week's Top 40 in succession. There's actually plenty of more innovative and interesting material still being recorded and released, but chances of such content breaking through to achieve any sort of notable mainstream singles chart profile is now lower than ever thanks to streaming. And I don't just mean 'stuff I happen to like'! Whatever one's personal view of the genres, artists or individual songs that have tended to prosper in the UK singles charts over the years, at least when sales still ruled there was a good deal of diversity, which would allow a broader appreciation from a wider audience of music fans. Even the '00s, which at the time felt a bit samey and as if all novel creative avenues in pop were closed and being recycled, a look at any average chart will reveal a surprising amount of musical diversity in terms of both category and quality, which wasn't unduly dampened by the takeover of downloads from CDs. Talent show vocalists rubbed shoulders with manufactured pop groups, metal/rock bands, dance/EDM producers, hip-hop/rap acts, indie rockers and internet-launched one-offs. The only real style that lost out post-2000 was the slow ballad or love song of the kind we were used to seeing in the 1990s and 1980s. It is sad that the story of the '10s was the steady decline in that once-proud diversity, partly through some consumers tiring with the pace of technological change and refusing to jump on board with digital developments, but mostly due to what in effect is the social engineering of streaming by major platforms via preconfigured playlists occupied for months on end by the same big hits, derived mainly from what was once known as 'urban' genres. Okay, if consumers didn't passively listen to such playlists, or the OCC found an effective way to remove such listens from their count, the impact would be lessened. But it'd be far better for Apple and Spotify et al to not offer such things in the first place - or if they do, ensure that enough breadth of musical styles are represented and turned-over more quickly. In a world where we seem to be on a quest for maximum diversity in all walks of life almost before any other factors are considered, it seems surprising that this doesn't get applied to online streaming playlist policy. Until it does, the charts will continue to be over-dominated by a small number of styles/acts, with lots of talent in other areas getting overlooked for lack of a chart foothold, and its turnover will stay stagnant, as the OCC struggle to control undesirable impacts of passive streaming by introducing more rules that only serve to manipulate and artificialise its rankings.

The problem is the OCC are so insular and locked-down about their precious chart products that they probably wouldn't accept any assistance offered from independent outside people, however well-intentioned, IT-literate, professional and alive to the restrictions of copyright etc they may be. That said I suppose they did condescend to bring Graham Betts on board to do the legwork on their official chart books, but he was a seasoned author with strong credentials and already had access to a lot of their content, so perhaps that's why they made an exception for him in order to get their printed project to proper fruition. I honestly think from what I know of their operation that if somebody with suitable proven capability volunteered to fix all these issues with their website and database for free they would still ignore the offer. They seem so paranoid about misuse of their data that they'd rather prevent any external party from getting at it, even if it were with a legitimate view to improving its consistency, scope and presentation online.

Ah I was wondering where this 'No label' default nonsense for 76-100 in '83 to '91 came from! I never would've guessed it was you KOS.... :rolleyes: The OCC site is SO much better than it was in terms of what it carries. But there remain significant gaps and inconsistencies. I can to a degree excuse or tolerate these, but the glitchiness of the site per se I do struggle with, as a generally impatient chap. I'm surprised to hear that users of it on Android phones report it works well; I find it's pretty cranky on mine for reasons already rehearsed in previous posts. Nothing more irritating than clicking on a link only to find a second or so later it's moved and it's registered your click on something else (quite possibly an ad). Knowing it's little foibles does help to avoid getting frustrated by them though. To know it may not be to love it, but certainly to accept and get the best from it.

This Top 20 appears to be a Top 26! I assume it's been extrapolated based on what we know to have been at least million-selling singles in its literal sense up to a year ago when the OCC last published a consolidated list? But even by then Adele's 'Make You Feel My Love' had registered 1.021m and counting - is that not a clear-cut love song? If we agree it is, then shouldn't this list be extended further beyond 'Whole Again', if it's meant to rank seven-figure paid-for sales in this genre?

All really valid and well-made points folks. And yes, arguably a music chart can never be entirely free from compromises of some sorts, including for a kick-off what is chosen by artists/labels to release and how promotion of that product is managed. Alas no chart has ever been there as a measure of relative musical quality or compositional excellence; it's more about what happens to capture the wider public's imagination for whatever random reasons at any given moment, which can and does produce some uneven and sometimes bizarre results in terms of chart placings. And of course its core purpose is for the industry that sponsors its compilation, not music fans who happen to have an interest in the commercial fortunes of their preferred artists or songs. I think Suedehead makes a particularly good point here though - I always regard the Jan '07 to Jun '14 period as a 'golden age' for UK singles chart completeness and accuracy (though not necessarily for the music that was troubling the charts during that time) and is probably as close to a 'clean' Top 100 (or 200) singles chart we had. It was clearly and simply still based on paid-for sales, which were still by far the dominant means of consumption (albeit increasingly on digital rather than physical formats for single tracks but at least the principle of the two remained constant - someone paid money for a particular track); no exclusions or restrictions were applied to any position 1 to 200 (other than the fundamental stuff like dealer price, playing time, unfair promo tools etc which can't be avoided); the 'DUS' methodology of surveying sales was by then well-embedded and reported transactions for nearly the entire market (over 99% I think by this point); the chart frame was more-or-less in sync with the calendrical week (so any calendar week had a single set of charts that clearly corresponded with what was current in those seven days). It seemed like we had after so long finally got the best charts in the world and certainly in British history, and they simply reflected whatever was going on in the marketplace, be that good or bad, natural or manipulated. Sadly the exponential onslaught of streaming as an alternative and now all-conquering means of consuming music perhaps inevitably meant that our charts would never be the same again, once the decision was taken - again I think inevitably - to blend it alongside traditional sales in the compilation of first singles and a little later albums charts. Initially at least it was a clear enough conversion, albeit entirely arbitrary, but as soon as they had to start tinkering with the ratios, and ultimately reimpose artificial restrictions across all positions, we lost that clean, clear and unmolested ranking that we enjoyed for those seven-and-a-half years. AcerBen is of course quite right though to point out most people outside of the geeky brigade of chartographers that contribute to this and other similar sites will not be thinking about this anywhere near as deeply and will probably care even less! I still say though that even those who only occasionally and casually brush with the UK charts need to just be wary about assuming everything they read about them is straightforward and 'true' - including data that emanates from the ostensibly unquestionable Official Charts Company source.

As KingofSkiffle says over on UKMix, it's likely to do with as much with limiting page-count for a printed book as it is with preserving exclusivity of their website content. So driving up internet traffic for those who want to view the current or previous full Top 100 and reducing outgoings on publishing a book that probably will only attract a small audience and may struggle to recoup its costs, are both in the OCC's interest. Though beyond these two perfectly legitimate purposes I do think there is an element of adhering to the Top 75 only by habit in the OCC. I suspect this is down to two factors. First, the continuing policy of Music Week to only print the Top 75 as it has done for 38 years. That decision was again probably motivated mainly by practical printing concerns, as publishing a chart each week with 25 more rungs would've created space issues and possible cost impacts if they had to move to publishing it on two rather than one page. The fact that a Top 100 has been available online since I think April 2005 via Yahoo! when the OCC began phasing digital sales into the singles count, and later via their own site, seems to have had no bearing on MW's approach, nor that of its chart consultants, both of whom always adhered stringently to reporting on Top 75 events with little mention of those outside it, in line with what readers would find in the printed edition. One might imagine that would soon change given the printed incarnation of MW is to move to a monthly publication, but as long as a weekly chart report is written and posted on their digital site, I suspect they'll still limit this to the 75, as old habits die hard, and of course it's more work for the chart consultant to report on a whole 100 placings! Secondly, it is possibly because it chimes with the long-term history of published chart books (spearheaded by Guinness) that only covered entries that registered with the first three quartiles of the 100 in any week. There is a comforting continuity in a statistical sense in offering as consistent a window on the charts as possible, and so sticking to a 75, at least since May 1978 when one was first published, may have an ostensible appeal on that basis. Moreover, from January 1983 to April 2005, it made more sense to retain a No 75 threshold for the official singles charts, as while positions 1 to 75 were essentially an authentic ranking of the biggest-selling titles in the past 7 days, those from 76 to 100 (or 200 in the extended industry-only table) were subject to sales-based exclusions and so didn't compare like-for-like with the first three quarters of the list. Indeed, Gambaccini and Co gave this as a justification for not using the full 100 in early editions of their British Hit Singles books, and other authors since followed suit. So until the dawn of the download era, one could say that sticking to just the 75 gave the 'cleanest' picture of chart hits available for the preceding 25+ years and one which enabled a fair comparison of weekly rankings from one year to another. However, the more one learns about the inconsistencies and changes in chart methodology and rules over the decades, the less clear-cut that picture gets, and the argument for retaining any sort of threshold for presentation of chart data starts to weaken, beyond just limits of space and cost. So for example sales-based restrictions were quietly applied to positions 41-75 in the early '00s to try and counter 'bargain bin' buys. From April 2005 to December 2006 the entire chart was partial thanks to exclusions of certain titles that were only available on download with no concurrent physical release. After a period of pretty genuine Top 100s that reflected bestsellers 1 to 100, came the inclusion of audio streaming from July 2014 which added an entirely different mode of consumption to the official charts based on an arbitrary 100:1 conversion ratio and so rendered comparisons with earlier sales-only counterparts arguably worthless. And of course since July 2017 the whole official Top 100 has been subject to artificial manipulation thanks to ACR and the 3-song cap aimed at damping-down the undesirable side-effects of streaming, making it even less valid to try and present it in any chart book as standing shoulder-to-shoulder with its pre-restriction forebears of any size. So, it now seems to me that sticking to just the Top 75, or even to the whole Top 100 say from from January 2007 when restrictions were removed and all sales counted, is a fool's errand because these portions of the singles chart (less so with albums) can only be considered consistent and meaningful when compared with each other until the rules changed again to compromise that continuity (and accuracy) across all its positions. If only the bottom quarter of our chart had ever been affected by these measures that render them effectively artificial and inconsistent, then we could defend the position of sticking to the 75 with some conviction. But in eras where they were applied to some or all positions below, there is no threshold one could safely use that would leave us with truly untainted 'pure' charts of a fixed size across all decades. Therefore I'd say they should publish as much as they can in retrospective chart publications such as this - i.e. as much as is published each week which is now the Top 100 - while acknowledging openly the rules that were/are in play which have distorted some or all the positions attributed to tracks each week in any given era. It's a shame the OCC's site is inconsistent on the size of the weekly singles chart offered in its archive, only offering a Top 100 from Jan '83 to Apr '91 when Record Mirror published the full 100, and again from Feb '94 when Millward Brown took over compilation duties. But that's mostly to do with them having neither the staff nor inclination to go through scores of old pre-Feb '94 paper Gallup chart reports in the old BPI Library and digitise the 76 to 100 segments of each one! Though understandable, there's many a chart enthusiast who'd probably have preferred they'd spent time and money on doing that than publishing a printed book of chart info for the last year, most if not all of which is already freely-available from their own and other open sources online!

I wouldn't be without Shazam now, as it's the only reliable means of identifying music hitherto unknown. It's especially handy when it's background music in a shop, on an ad or soundbed for a TV programme, but also when listening to radio as it's always possible the crappy DJ won't give information either before or afterwards as to artist and title. As said above, it's still a very powerful and impressive app when one considers what must be involved on the technical side and the millions of recorded pieces it must have access to. It is annoying when it gives a nil return, but then that's often because there's too much other background noise, or possibly with TV or film incidental music because it's a piece specially-written for that broadcast and hasn't been issued on any streaming or sales platforms. Occasionally it's thrown up an obviously incorrect result, but in my experience over eight years of regular use, maybe only five occasions, so pretty consistent really. It's helped direct me to many tracks I've gone on to buy, so in my case perhaps it is a pre-indicator of what could result in future purchases or online listens and I expect it's the same for many. Though I am bound to say that I don't think its daily rolling chart is as relevant as those provided by actual sales or streaming sites, as notwithstanding its ongoing relevance and high usage numbers, it's a one-off transaction that is entirely free, and it doesn't always safely denote a listener enjoyed it or would wish to stream/buy in future. While it may be a minority, I'm certain some people Shazam stuff they don't like and would never consume directly, yet still are curious as to who performed the track and what it's called. I know I have. Nevertheless it's another interesting metric for how people engage with digital technology to access and educate themselves about music, and it is interesting for those who follow the markets and resultant charts to see how closely it does reflect what is currently being played most on radio, TV and online outlets. It's not meant to be a better or more accurate barometer than official or other site-compiled consumption charts; just a different slant. So definitely worth posting Tefo and thanks for bothering.

More disappointingly, streaming ruined paid-for sales of music; the incorporation of it into charts around the globe merely reflected that sad truth, and the sheer speed at which the cannibalisation process was unfolding. I hate the impacts streaming has had on the UK singles (less-so albums) chart, but there was no way it could ignore it forever. While personally I'd liked to have kept the two tabulations separate, denoting that they are clearly two very discrete means of measuring a song's commercial success, I fully understand why the industry and the charts company it sponsors felt that wasn't an option, and that a 'single source of truth' was what was required, however awkward the juxtaposition of two different forms of consumption proved to be. I really still don't fully understand though why streaming has taken off to such an exponential degree; or more accurately why it's effectively stripped the traditional sales market down to minimal levels. Is buying music really such a bad deal? Perhaps this is because I believe in paying a reasonable sum for recorded music, and still see one-off purchasing (when there is a reasonable market for it) as a better overall barometer of popularity that multiple rented listens, if only because of all the issues we have with passive streaming of predictable and unchanging preconfigured playlists by large streaming sites, which in turn have led to ludicrous exclusion and consumption-based arbitrary chart rules that skew the true picture of what the biggest songs are each week. Streaming also only brings notable revenues for very established artists, mostly in the 'urban' genres, which tilts chart performance in favour of a very musically-limited set of acts and slows its turnover to a hibernating animal's heartbeat. Or, it could just be that I am something of an old-fashioned bloke who treats technology with more of a reproach than approach in general and I still resent that music is now so dominated by virtual media rather than tangible, physical product - for all the cost, labour and space saving the digital revolution brought us. In any case though, the hard truth is that the figures speak for themselves, and there would in 2020 be little point in persisting with an argument that a sales-only chart should be the format for the singles rankings, because in the average typical seven-day frame, the best-selling track struggles to turn-in 7,000 or so downloaded copies, often less, and a just-into-five-figures tally is now something to be celebrated. Physical singles are virtually irrelevant despite the mini-boom in vinyl sales and artist-own websites selling limited edition CDs. When one considers that the 100th bestseller probably shifts 1,000 or below, it is clear that the sales-only listing, while still useful to us chartologist types as a like-for-like direct comparison with the pre-July 2014 official singles charts, is simply not relevant to enough people any more to command any great impact or support. Streaming now seems set to be the way that 95%+ of our music gets consumed in the foreseeable future, right or wrong, love or hate. I still half-hope something seismic will happen to wake people up and draw them back to buying instead of renting, but, short of a global internet meltdown, which is hardly desirable given the reliance we now have on it in wider society, the chances of this look to be somewhere between 'fat' and 'no'.

For me - and this is despite liking the songs in question - based on how it felt at the time - 'Ghostbusters' by Ray Parker Jr, and 'Relax' by Frankie Goes To Hollywood. While now I celebrate them as enduring pop moments whose 'pure' sales as we must now call them kept them alive in the Top 75 for so many months, it did feel at the time as if they'd long-since run their course. Modern chart listeners will relate to this far more readily as there have been so many long-runners owing to the nature of the market and the way the charts are compiled, but these were early examples of 'too much of a good thing'. These two felt particularly frustrating because they both had second winds in the chart, recovering a Top 10 position after what had apparently been their natural peak. 'Blue Monday' of course did the same, at least once, but it is still a perfect record to my ears and so I won't have a word said against it! Shows how enduring it was for its repeated chart profile not to have annoyed me, in an era where your average typical Top 10-peaking track would spend between 10 and 20 weeks on the Top 75 and usually follow a conventional climb-peak-fall pattern.

It's great that the OCC publish updates to this all-time list every now and then, but would it really hurt for them to publish the recorded total sales to-date against each entry? It's such an obvious omission. They can't claim that the full data is sensitive, as for their update of September 2017 people like me couldn't believe their luck, as they provided to-the-latest-unit figures for all tracks on the list, as well as breaking-down the figures for biggest on pure sales and on streaming equivalents. Really interesting for those who care about the transition of the market from paid-for purchasing to audio/video rented streaming. Also, it would help if they chose to provide such updates at a more statistically-significant cut-off point, so for example 1 January 2020 following the end of the 2010s on 31 Dec '19, or possibly 1 Jan '21 as the actual calendrical decade runs from Jan '11 to Dec '20? It seems they just do what they fancy when they fancy it and the inconsistency is irritating. But I suppose better some sort of update at some random point than none at all, which for so many years was the case even after the launch of their online site.

Somehow try to get fans of those indie, rock and other under-represented genres to embrace streaming en-masse! Sadly, while these musical styles fared the transition in singles terms from CD to download reasonably well in the 2000s, it seems that they have not followed suit in the 2010s shift from download purchasing to online streaming, whereas fans of certain other genres such as rap and dance apparently have. It's hard to explain why this has become the case, because it seems that the sales once guaranteed for some artists in the indie/rock sector have fallen away too, and not been replaced by streaming. It begs the question whether fans of these acts now tend to assume there isn't anything much being released now of interest, and so don't actually consume a lot of new music at all. They also won't be buying much catalogue content either, as presumably they'll already own it, either on download or CD, of at the collectors' end of the market, possibly vinyl. It's wrong to say there isn't anything decent of that ilk being made any more, but its profile is so low now compared to other genres, both at radio and TV, that it likely doesn't get heard by potential consumers, unless they're seeking it out proactively online, but if they are successfully doing that, there's little impact of it in respect of buying or streaming. And what there is is so hugely overpowered by that accrued by grime etc that it just can't get a foothold anymore in the obvious places - the combined singles chart, radio/TV airplay schedules etc. It's almost impossible to successfully push a sector of the market away from one format and into another if they're not ready to make the transition organically. But something could and should be done about the 'passive streaming' problem, whereby large sites programme pre-conceived playlists which favour black music styles massively, and don't change much over many months, which then get passively-streamed by lazy listeners and so get to stranglehold the singles charts. The OCC's move to distinguish between 'paid-for (subscription)' and 'free (ad-funded)' streams helped a little, but the default listening of pre-made playlists is definitely one of the policies that needs to be changed, and as an industry it would be possible, if there was seen to be enough in it for them, and the damage to the chart brand itself caused by this trend were fully-realised. But as it stands there seems to be little evidence of any appetite to quell the problem, with Spotify, Apple Music and Amazon all allowed to do things exactly the way they choose, having effectively created a three-way dominance of the streaming sector between them. Sadly, I fear more elaborate alterations to the chart will be made rather than any attempt to change the way in which streaming is presented and measured.