Gambo

King Of The Rodeo Peak at No. 41 23/04/05 - Kings Of Leon I think this is possibly one of the most unfortunate official No 41s of all time. W/E 23 Apr '05 was the first (partially)combined official physical and digital singles chart, wherein digital sales were counted towards official chart positions for the first time, provided the track had an equivalent physical release that had been issued within the last 52 weeks. If I recall correctly, it was reported in Music Week that had the old physical-only chart still been in use as the official tabulation, 'King Of The Rodeo' would've scraped a No 37 placing. But as it was, thanks to the sudden influx of what were then relatively slender, but still significant-enough, download sales into the mix, official history will always record it as having not been a Top 40 hit.

A lot of obvious candidates already cited here I see. I also think it'd be fair to rule-out posthumous comebacks after long hiatuses as these aren't strictly 'organic'. So that sets-aside people like Elvis, Roy Orbison, even Jacko. The first act I thought of outside of these was Texas - by 1992 they appeared to have been past their moment in the commercial sun, such as it ever had been with a sole Top 10 single in 1989. The last thing I expected was that an album released five years later would yield a slew of Top 10 singles, and a far-superior run of hits from 1997 to 2001 than they'd ever managed in their first few years.

Quite right, which is why video streaming should in my view be resisted by the industry. Some people will watch almost entirely for the visual piece, while others simply want to listen to the audio track. The two products are linked, but can be mutually-exclusive. Needless to say, the US incorporated video streaming some while back, and where the Americans lead there is always the concern that the British may eventually follow, for better or worse, although it's been a few years and I've heard no recent rumblings suggesting that yet another variable be added to the chart compilation formula. I'm not writing-off the possibility of it eventually coming on board, especially when paid-for sales get to historically-low frictional levels and the chart is essentially almost all streaming anyway, but for now I think the OCC has all-on to try and tame the beast of audio streaming in a consistent and meaningful way (however poorly they seem to have done so far), and the introduction of another format is probably the last thing they need. Saying that, when the dust settles on the current transitional phase, as a forerunner, they might first introduce video streams to the streaming-only chart to test it. Once they're content, then they might unleash the 'combined' audio and video streaming formula on the main combined charts.

The thrust of this article does chime a lot of chords with us, and will do with less-engaged casual chart followers. It's not entirely fair of course, and doesn't quite present as complete a solution to the OCC's half-arsed current approach as it thinks. But I can see why some will feel this way, and it's all because of the insistence on there being a singular source of truth when it comes to national 'official' chart positions. If there were two discrete charts operating with no 'combined' tabulation, sure, there'd be issues around which is the most relevant and which data to cite. But surely that'd be less-bothersome than all this mess with splicing sales and streams into one? There is no complete solution to this, as long as the official charts must combine two incompatible formats - one very simple, sales (albeit that they are not a total measure of 'popularity' in itself and never were); the other very complex, streaming (so many possible variables as to why someone might have listened to a track online etc). All I can say, rather unhelpfully, is that as an old fart who still prefers to just buy the songs I like (downloads for singles, and even occasionally the odd album on CD), I really really wish that streaming had never been invented!! Imagine how simple, if still manipulated and imperfect, the world of chart compilation would be without it! And of course we'd likely not have to be concerned with struggling download, or even physical sales, because there'd be no other way to consume music - well, legally at any rate!! Most youngsters will recoil at someone actually wishing something as embedded and 'quick-fix' as streaming would go away, as it's possibly all they've known, and they tend to see every technological labour-saving advance as a good thing. And don't get me wrong; on a more serious note, of course it certainly isn't all bad - it's so good for so many, and does no harm to consumers per se. But as a chart enthusiast, and purely in the realm of managing straightforward, meaningful, singular chart compilation, you've got to admit, it's a bitch!

All worthy suggestions, depending on how one measures 'flop'. If we mean sub-Top 40 in the UK, then I guess 'Summer Of '69' is one of the most conspicuous contenders, given its enduring radio and DJ appeal, and consistent download sales in the digital era. If we adopt a sub-75 approach, probably 'Hungry Eyes' has it for similar reasons. My own contributions off the top of my head and which I don't think have been cited so far would be: 'The Promise' by When In Rome (only made Top 60 despite US success and strong airplay support) 'That's When I Think Of You' by 1927 (scraped Top 50 yet strong on radio and all things Aussie being in vogue thanks to a certain acting/singing duo from 'Neighbours') 'Just To Get By' by Babakato (just missed the Top 75 - likely Top 80, notwithstanding being tipped for great things as a boy band as I recall, and again good airplay, but the hype was never realised) 'Fascinated' by Company B ('next 25' only - so maybe Top 100 at best in real terms, although a massive club hit at the time, just ahead of the acid house craze taking over where hi-energy left-off).

It would simply look - and be - better if they allowed the published chart to reflect what the true positions actually are, however disproportionate or inconvenient it might be when a single artist registers more than three titles in the chart. This chart regime just continues to be so pointless.

Depends on how one defines "non-charted" - I believe some of these have managed lower (perhaps sub-Top 100) entries, possibly not at the time of contemporary release but subsequently (in the case of those titles never released as a single per se, they might have scraped some later chart action as an album track etc in the post-physical era). 'Bitch, Don't Kill My Vibe' by Kendrick Lamar for example - an actual digital single - made No 119 on 20 July 2013, though I appreciate many wouldn't consider this high enough to be a canonical chart 'hit', and that you won't necessarily be aware of such placings if you're not a 'UKChartsPlus' subscriber! Moreover, since 15 July this year the OCC have curtailed the full Top 200 to a 'compressed' 100 only, even to UKCP, ceasing the possibility for lesser-selling tracks to register a known peak below No 100.

Contrary to the majority of commentators here, I simply can never acknowledge any singles chart that artifically skews the reality of what the true combined sales/streams rankings are in any given week in actual descending order, notwithstanding all the problems the awkward juxtaposition of the two distinct modes of consuming music has created, such as slow turnover and inability of certain acts or tracks to gain any notable foothold in the upper echelons of the chart. Amending the ratio was bad enough, but excluding certain artist's tracks or quickening the descent of older titles to pretend that others are somehow ranking above them is quite simply cheating. Moreover, I don't think these restrictions appear to be achieving what they set out to - not that I'm in favour of yet-more qualifications on what can and can't appear in the published official charts, although patently more such skews will follow as they desperately keep tweaking the formula to try and manage the monster that is saturation streaming, and the mouse that is sliding sales. The chart should not have been changed; rather efforts to alter the way in which people often stream music - i.e. lazy listens of pre-configured playlists of the saturation pop hits as background, or possibly refine the calculations as to which kinds of stream are permitted to count towards the chart rankings. But for those who prefer a quicker turnover at any cost, and believe that more new music is genuinely getting a better exposure chart-wise because of these changes, I am pleased.

It's almost the entire problem in my view! They can't not listen to certain significant industry players - especially when they may be helping to fund the chart itself - and sometimes must act to appease them, however skewed or hopeless the resulting compromise may be. We all knew the ludicrous decision in March 2006 to remove a track from the official chart if it had been deleted physically more than two weeks earlier, regardless of how healthy ongoing digital sales were, would be disastrous and skew the allocation of positions horribly, unfairly booting out genuine-selling singles while artificially inflating the ranking of those still eligible to be listed. And that restriction was applied from position 1 downward. Yet we all had to resign ourselves to the reality that it was a sop to a sector of the industry that the charts company had to accommodate - in this case the then-still influential physical retailers - whose main interests were not allowing digital to overwhelm physical so swiftly, and how it'd look with gaps in their chart displays where a single was no longer stockable physically but still occupied an official chart position. It didn't matter how dated we all had to accept those causes would soon become, if they weren't already outmoded by that stage. Their influence was enough to create a compromise that was always going to taint the veracity of chart records for the nine months before they conceded that all sales must be counted and all tracks selling enough awarded a chart rank, but was never going to reverse the sad decline in physical sales or even support retailers long-term. The concept of 'chart walls' was dead in most of them within three years, and soon after so was that of the CD single per se. We need to acknowledge and tolerate the increasing cannibalisation of true sales by audio streaming, but the way the two types of consumption have been combined in the chart is clumsy, and was always going to create further problems down the line. Restrict streaming at source rather than restrict the charts.

Couldn't have put it better myself! The whole thing is horrible.

Alas I'm in agreement with Liamk97 in that realistically, a TOTP-style show now simply wouldn't garner enough ratings to justify its costs on a routine slot on a mainstream 'terrestrial' channel. There has always been MTV for satellite users which leads on music-specialised content, and now the internet which I believe is the chief source of 'a la carte' views of current (or indeed catalogue) audio-visual performances, at least by the bulk of those interested in the present output who are generally of the younger demographic. The ongoing re-runs of old TOTP episodes from its heydays only receive the interest they do because of the 'nostalgia factor'; as they work through into '90s and latterly '00s I suspect fewer people will take an interest even in these, as fewer people tuned in to them at the time and so won't view TOTP with the same dewy-eyed rose-tinted perspective as those of us who grew up in an era when it was THE chart show of import and - until the later '80s at least when rivals such as The Chart Show and The Roxy were launched by independent channels - was the sole source of chart music TV for the majority. And if you were an official chart fan only, these pretenders to the crown would never do as they couldn't use it, and so TOTP remained the weekly appointment on TV, alongside the audio rundown broadcast on Radio 1. So naturally more people will feel more fondly about it the longer one goes back. I would imagine that if this were ever to work, it would have the greatest chance on an online-only channel, and I suppose BBC3 is the obvious home, now it is online-only and is directed at young audiences, who would appreciate the content of the current charts most. Yet at the same time they're the most internet-savvy, and I somehow doubt that a fixed programme like that would appeal to enough of them to centre their focus on a weekly appointment with it, as opposed to just tapping in to what they already know and love from various sites as they go, when it suits them. If that is correct then I can't see how the bean counters would support any attempt at revival for long. The failure of the rebooted TFI proved that I think. I hope they do take a flyer on this and that I'm ultimately proved wrong in my assumptions, but if I were a betting man, I wouldn't be betting against myself.

Lonnie this is most welcome - makes the whole process far-easier and I've just made my purchase via PayPal. I've yet to have a chance to fully-peruse the virtual tome on the 1950s singles, but I'm already thinking that a tenner is damn good value for such a piece of comprehensive work. Can't wait to be in possession of the full set but realise I must be patient as that is due what, 2020?!

I think they do still matter to enough music consumers to keep them relevant, albeit that inevitably the total figures sold per week, and average tallies shifted by individual titles typically will continue a fairly steep decline as the decade draws to a close - both in the singles and albums sectors, although the former will be boosted far more by audio streaming equivalent units than the latter. Whatever the rate of decline by 2020 is shown to have been, there will always be people who prefer to buy their music to own, single or album, digital or physical (with the latter still very significant in the make-up of the albums sales market, despite doomladen forecasts that CD sales would decrease to frictional levels in the same way as they did with singles). Older consumers I believe tend still towards purchases while younger have embraced streaming most enthusiastically. Demographics are important here because from a mainstream chart perspective, at least in terms of singles, the market is driven primarily by young listeners, and the majority of music produced by mainstream acts is designed to appeal to current tastes, however limited, artificial or unpalatable some of us find them. The fact that youngsters go so much for streaming does partly explain why the singles chart has become so rapidly dominated by that form of consumption, as the bulk of the titles in the Top 100 or even 200 tend to be 'pop' - be that in the form of R 'n' B, hip-hop, dance or straight pop. I deliberately omit rock or metal as those genres have lost huge ground with the demise of physical sales, with their fans tending to prefer a tangible product to buy rather than a virtual one, and so barely even embraced the download let alone got into streaming. All of this is compounded by the frequently-criticised compilation of standard mainstream playlists with the predictable same big hits on them - but then again it's the laziness of consumers not bothering to cherry-pick their preferences more keenly and assemble more bespoke lists that helps drive that trend (and in turn keeps the same crop of megahits in the chart for far longer). Personally I really hope there will always remain a niche for proper sales, however marginalised by streaming, and I believe there will be, as we still see with the physical market, however aggressive the assault from digital became. And of course, as long as our chart is there to reflect the relative performance of available titles in both kinds of consumption (however awkward that continues to be for chart compilation purposes), it must still count both the number of audio streams and the number of bought copies across all formats. My greatest concern is that as they dwindle, weekly performance reports will start to routinely fail to mention any figures for paid-for sales only. That might not matter to many, but for those of us who still find it interesting and important to make some sort of comparison of current performance with the past when streaming was not available or at least was not yet incorporated into the charts, it is imperative that at the least the week's true sales No 1 is reported, and not just the combined official chart-topper's tally. Since June 2014 when the combined chart launched, by my reckoning Music Week have failed to cite the breakdown of streams and sales for the paid-for No 1 single on six occasions and I worry that casuality will only become more frequent as sales reduce and are perceived to be of less relevance to the wider audience. It happened very quickly with the physical/digital handover, although as fewer and fewer singles were even released on a physical format that was perhaps more understandable. As long as digital downloads remain an option - and whatever Apple plan to do with iTunes in the coming years I hope that they will continue to be sold via other retail sites - then they should be cited; at least in respect of the biggest seller. Certainly with albums that must continue, with downloads having never attained the kind of takeover in the sales sector that they did with singles, and with sales (albeit in decline) still commanding a 55-60% portion of the market (whereas it's now down to 5-10% in singles).

This manoeuvre was inevitable, as are future reviews and tweaks to the sales/streams ratio in coming years, as Martin Talbot of OCC confirms. However as someone who wishes to keep the charts as simple and consistent in their compilation methodology as possible - and who never really reconciled to the notion of counting both these discrete kinds of music consumption together in an awkwardly-combined single chart - this is just yet another alteration that effectively renders comparisons between current and earlier unit totals close to meaningless. So not only must we try and make sense of the folding-in of audio streams alongside true sales by the presenting of streams as an equivalent 'sale' figure, which has made a mockery of the concept of 'total sales' and most notably 'million-sellers', we now can't even compare combined unit tallies for tracks from July 2014 to December 2016 like-for-like with those that will follow from January 2017, up until the next adjustment in ratio which will likely come around 2019. Presenting these streaming equivalent 'sales' as a continuum from the pure sales era is a nonsense and it really is like counting apples and pears. I appreciate many followers want the chart to speed up and be configured so as to reflect more newer music. But I just want a chart that is accurate and counts consumption as consistently and fairly as possible, irrespective of the speed and shape that creates in the weekly tabulations. Insisting on combining these two formats meant that from mid-2014, this could never really be achieved meaningfully, especially with all the periodic adjustments they feel they must make as streaming steadily overhauls buying and reduces actual sales to more nominal amounts. As a sales-orientated person who still buys downloads, I am pleased that sales will effectively have more of an impact again. But as many point out, that won't last if streaming continues to grow apace, and it can't ultimately mask the fact that sadly, paid-for purchases are on a fairly steep decline overall, and despite the fact that I see them as a fairer and simpler means of measuring a track's commercial popularity than streaming, I have to concede that giving sales an artificially higher profile in the charts by increasing the streaming-to-sale ratio just skews the true picture even further. To my mind, whatever happens, we should be given far more detail when total tallies are reported as to the contributions of paid-for sales and audio stream equivalents. We get that breakdown for the weekly No 1 single and album, but rarely for anything else, and I'm never clear on whether the OCC are consistent in citing either total sales, or total combined units, when they announce current totals. The picture is too blurred and for those of us who want to establish the separated-out totals for each type of consumption, that information should be available to us, regardless of whether the official charts are combined and at what ratio the two formats are counted. By the way, do we have a specific date for when this change is due to take effect? So far we just seem to have "January"!

Dear me - he is a young candidate for that kind of condition. Mark always came across as a straightforward, decent, honest and yet professional person in his heyday on Radio 1, both at the helm of the Top 40 (which on aggregate lasted for nine years between 1990 and 2002!) and on his other daytime shows. He was always a smart presenter on TV too in his Top Of The Pops capacity. He bowed-out gracefully from R1 and I think he knew it was time to move to other things - namely lucrative voiceover for Now! and other music products, occasional spots on R2 and focusing on Wise Buddah, which I believe has become very successful. Maybe he's been working too hard at that? In any case, it doesn't feel deserved and I'm pleased the article says he'd recovering well now. A real gent and no mistake.

I doubt that ILR would ever be granted rights to broadcast the official Top 40, despite the treatment it's been given by Radio 1, which in fairness even to them, has largely been a response to the way the industry have driven the chart in recent times. It wouldn't be legitimate or realistic to have hoped that the chart could've remained the way it had been for so long, given the recent changes to the market, and the way people listen nowadays. What's interesting to me though, is that whatever the wrongs and rights of 'New Music Fridays', the consequent industry shift of the chart week to a split-week frame, and the resultant move of the Top 40 Show to Fridays from Sundays, I listened to the full three hours of the ILR "Big Top 40 Show" for the first time last Sunday (I've never sat through an entire ILR chart ever since its inception in 1984, always favouring the R1 option). I wasn't especially looking to pay close attention to the detail, as for all the criticisms of the impact of streaming etc, I shall always follow the official tabulation (as long as they don't restrict eligibilty rules in any significant way at least), and so I was just looking for some background while I got on with something else on Sunday afternoon. However, from what I heard, the programme actually wasn't too insufferable, and bar the odd inane interview with some of the 'stars', and the inherent limitations of a chart that's based only on I-Tunes sales from 1-10 and sales/airplay for the rest, it was presented reasonably well as a straightforward countdown of the hits. No patch on how the official one was on R1 back in my youth of course, but I thought a considerable improvement on the R1 formula which has been execrable to all but young kids for at least a decade! No; I am bound to say it was quite passable in format. So that leaves me to wonder whether it would be the end of the world if it did ever move to the likes of Capital et al? Provided they had no say over the formula and compilation of the chart, I think Marvin Humes and that bird he's with whose name escapes me would do okay?! No offence to Greg James though over on R1 - he does an acceptable job I think, and can't help that the Top 40 has been moved to an antisocial day and shoehorned into a very narrow slot.

The above has been true seemingly for rock/guitar acts since the advent of downloading, as it appears that fans of those genres prefer not just paid-for purchasing, but largely in the physical format. Hence since the late '00s we've witnessed a gradual takover of more urban, produced genres which for some reason seem to do well on download, and now also seem to benefit significantly from their popularity on streaming. I can only surmise that this is mostly to do with demographics, in that guitar and rock-based acts are more likely to be beloved of more 'mature' fans - and I don't just mean vintage artists such as ELO but even more current people like Biffy Clyro - and those consumers generally tend to stick to CD or vinyl, with limited take-up on download, but hardly any on streaming. Another genre that will markedly lose out due to the rapid rise in streaming over sales is the teen pop/boy and girl groups -acts like 5 Seconds Of Summer, The Vamps et al seem to do better on paid-for than rented. Perhaps they're not regularly included in these 'most played' playlists of Spotify's (not being a Spotify user I wouldn't know but it wouldn't surprise me). This will presumably make it harder for the latest talent show crop to harvest an instant chart-topper, even at Christmas, when they must now compete against other acts who have legions of fans choosing the streaming platform, and whose tracks will be much more mature in that sector having been made available some weeks or even months ahead. It seems that brand of young pop is now being eaten away by the likes of Justin Bieber and Drake who do nothing special on sales but are constantly streamed. The only brand I can see still outperforming on sales to the extent that it manages to overhaul the latest high-streamed offerings clogging up the chart are occasional charity releases, which of course traditionally do very nicely on CD, but then fall away swiftly, having limited appeal to downloaders, and even less to streamers. Personally, whilst I don't mind the fading fortunes of some of the above, I don't feel they're being replaced by anything especially worthy, and it does rather imply that the current brand of over-processed, studio-led, urben-inflected basic pop productions will continue to dominate the Top 100 to the detriment, and possible exclusion, of other genres which sometimes deserve better. Albums compensate for this lack of variety to a degree, but with sales looking so weak in that market, it doesn't feel like much of a trade-off for artists who just can't get enough leverage on streaming or download to score big hit singles, regardless of how much support they might receive from major radio and TV stations.

I recall advocating this same idea over a year ago before we knew what the new format would be; only that it would be forced to move to a Friday to coincide with the new split week chart frame. The initial reveal could simply cover the highlights and the Top 3, in maybe a 45 minute slot leading into Newsbeat, like Paul Burnett/Johnnie Walker's old Tuesday lunchtime chart show. Then a more detailed coverage at the old 4-7, or 5-7, or 4-6 slot on Sunday, which needn't be solely the full Top 40 combined singles countdown; given the ongoing logjam in the chart some of the other interesting non-Top 40 aspects could be incorporated, such as the Top 5 albums, chart-toppers on sales and streaming, and the other items people have suggested on here. This would help to keep the modern minute-attention-spanned listener interested over the two or three hours. Has anyone seen any official listening figures for the R1 chart show since it switched to Friday? I can't think they're getting anything like the levels regularly achieved for Sundays, if only because of the awkwardness of the time. I guess figures are higher for that time slot perhaps, and of course people can now listen when they like on podcasts etc. But for most who still care about the weekly broadcast, I'd imagine they'd want to hear the new numbers live as soon as they're released. The Friday 'reveal' show could still match that, but those who want more detailed exploration of the chart could tune in at the far more sociable Sunday slot to properly-digest the still-only-two-days-old chart. I think listening figures for the Friday would likely remain about what they are now - perhaps a tad lower - but they'd get a significant uplift for the Sunday (surely that Cel Spellman thing isn't raking in even what the old Top 40 managed in its final months?!).

Ideally we'd go back to a Sunday-Saturday chart frame and we could restore the more sociable listening slot of Sundays 4 till 7, playing all or most of the Top 40 singles etc, but ignoring that as an impossibility and sticking with what we have bearing in mind the present slow pace of the charts, I'd suggest the following: - Preview clips of tracks new or on the climb at positions 100 to 41. - Full plays of tracks that are new entries or climbers at positions 40 to 21. - Full plays of all tracks irrespective of movement (or lack of!) at positions 20-1. - Intersperse at some point with preview clips of tracks from Top 5 albums, and maybe No 1 on separate sales and streaming charts. - Avoid any inane DJ drivel, interactivity and competitions! - Ideally run from 4 until 6PM Fridays, assuming Newsbeat can move a mere 15 minutes later (is it really a LEGAL requirement to have it at 5:45 come what may?!) - Time permitting, presenter to offer an accurate current fact about each record before/after play; chart-based, sales-based, artist news, etc. - Link all fully-played tracks to online video play where a vid is available. Just a thought, though frankly nearly everybody's suggestions on this hitherto would be an improvement on the current format! I don't hear the Top 40 very often nowadays, but it seems like the only half-decent thing about it is Greg James, who handles things a little more professionally than some of his forebears, within the brief he's been given. Let's not get carried away though folks; judging by some of the bilge that new Radio 1 controller (sorry kids; should that be "Controlla"?!) has been spouting chart-wise, I wouldn't hold out any immediate hopes of improvements.

Hear hear. Just a shame the quality - in my book - of the music in today's charts is generally so poor. I've bought 31 single tracks so far in 2016 (yes, BOUGHT - there's still a few of us around!), but only 14 of them registered a chart placing within the Top 200, and fewer still grazed the 100. There's still decent music out there, but one may not necessarily find it in the upper echelons of the charts, and rarely do I really believe that the biggest hits represent the best on offer in terms of musical composition and lyrical literacy. But, for all the concerns about the sameness of so many songs nowadays and the increasingly processed nature of them, as well as the impact of audio streaming and the steady dilapidation of true sales changing the shape of the market, I do prefer the slower pace of the chart now compared to the frenetic 1990s or 2000s, where sales of the biggest singles could be significant, but were considered a living oldie if they clung on to a Top 75 berth ten weeks after release. Yes, the pendulum's swung a little too far in the way of slowness now, but as I always say, the chart configuration is determined by the public's patterns of sales (and now streams), and people should not be looking to advocate changes to the chart just because they don't like the dominant behaviour of titles within it, any more than because they don't personally like what appears in it. It should be retained as the most accurate reflection of the market, for better and worse, as is possible. I would say that the longevity of a track within the Top 100 or 200 is actually less of a determinating factor as to what constitutes a bona fide 'hit', as it is now so common for titles to retain chart positions for months on end, despite sometimes having peaked relatively low, and in a declining sales climate, clocking up enough units to stay in the chart each week may not compare favourably to what was needed to sustain a chart run in times of stronger sales. As has always been the case, the best barometer of determining the greatest hits in any era is neither the peak position nor weeks on chart, but surely their overall sales tally (and nowadays its streaming units), especially now all tracks are available in perpetuity rather than just a few months as was the norm in the physical era. A track that's shifted a million copies - and I'd say actual copies rather than streaming equivalents, surely ahs to be considered a more sizeable hit in relative terms to those that sold less. Better-still those who managed such lofty levels of commercial success within only a few months, and in the physical era, as opposed to titles that've taken decades to achieve it thanks to trickle-sales since being made available digitally. In a less measurable sense though, another valid way of assessing the success and status of a song is to look at its longer-term impact culturally. Has a track lived longer in the memory of music fans, for whatever reason, and even if it didn't shift many units or perform with distinction on the charts, has the song nevertheless gone on to cement a wider importance beyond its commercial reach that renders it more worthy, or more relevant, to the broader history of popular music than many of those which sold well for a while, but ultimately have been forgotten by a large portion of people? There have been numerous examples of this down the decades, from say Van Morrison's 'Brown-Eyed Girl' which never even scraped a Top 50 position in 1967, yet is widely-known and loved by many even today, with frequent radio play, to 'Teenage Kicks' by The Undertones - regarded now as a seminal punk classic boosted by the endorsement of John Peel, yet at the time a brief Top 40 flirtation. Even songs that sold well but didn't quite hit the highest heights won't be viewed as less of a hit in many people's eyes; so some of The Beatles' incredibly well-liked and well-known singles 'only' sold half a million copies in the 1960s, while Robson & Jerome's first two singles both topped the million very quickly in the '90s. Yet which is likely to be best-remembered, and seen as the more relevant and worthy 'hits' in retrospect? I think we know the answer. So in summary, sales and streaming tallies provide the entry level measure of success and whether something is a comparative hit or not - although it is entirely arbitrary as to where one draws the line as to where something ceases to be classifiable as a 'hit' based on figures. And looking only at units shifted as a determinator of wider impact or success is only half the story. In both cases, only time will tell if a song will be looked back upon by a majority who would agree that it was a genuine bona fide outstanding performance that may or may not have outperformed the market at the time of its peak popularity, but has in any case transcended commerciality to secure a permanent place in the history books and that which future generations will keep coming back to. Sadly, I fear we will have fewer and fewer of that kind of song in today's charts, however high and for however long they score.

I appreciate that the sales to audio streams ratio is related to revenue generation, but nevertheless in the notional interests of fairness and ensuring parity between the two sectors in the combined chart, this does sound a rather compelling idea, as it scotches the issue of the same people simply streaming the same song incessantly artificially inflating the fortunes of that title in the singles chart. We seem to have to accept that streaming is rapidly cannibalising the sales market, but my biggest beef with the combination of these two different ways of consuming music is that there's not enough similarity between the two - i.e. a paid-for purchase is a one-off impact regardless of listens thereafter, while a stream can be reflected on multiple occasions, even though 100 have to accrue before they are converted to a 'sale' equivalent. If an initial stream only counted towards a track's tally for the charts, then it would in a way seem a fairer balance between streaming and buying. That said, I suppose it's always been possible for people to buy more than one copy at different stores in different weeks, but then realistically, few if any would seriously look to purchase enough multiple copies of a download (and definitely a CD!) to equate to the kind of numbers added by multiple streams. Whatever formula they apply to chart compilation however, the main things are that is is as accurate as it can be using that methodology, and that the data being captured is derived from voluntary consumption by the public - NOT programming by broadcasters. Hence, the argument for including airplay in the mix is no greater now than it was previously, including the era when the chart's turnover was many times greater than it is presently. Let the chart reflect whatever the public's consumption each week has been, albeit that it must now be ranked using an awkward juxtaposition of two very different styles of digital consumption. It shouldn't be changed just to make it move differently, and the boss of Radio 1's opinion should have no greater bearing on this than mine, or anyone else's on this site. Nevertheless, the opinions that will count and could skew the way the chart operates (even more than they already have) are industry execs, and if enough see a benefit for them (not buyers, not streamers, not chart fans, not radio/TV watchers), they will of course vote in changes that help deliver that.

I note that the OCC confirm that 'Starships' is the 166th ACTUAL million-seller (as opposed to the increasingly-cited pseudo million-"sellers" that are inclusive of streaming units). Have they issued a recent list of the TRUE seven-figure shifters to date - better still with an indication of each entry's total paid-for purchases? If so, would someone be able to post it if they haven't already? The way sales are going now, that list is unlikely to alter that much in the coming years, and may not be far off a long-term all-time million-sellers table akin to the one released in 2002. which we relied upon in essence for some time as physical singles sales were plummeting at that point ahead of the realisation of the latent download market. Only those whose trickle-sales on digital will still be enough to cross the line fairly soon will be new additions in the foreseeable future (i.e. those with over 950K already under their belt). This is starkly reflected by the fact that our incumbent 13-week No 1 has only sold about 500K when its massive streaming performance is stripped away. Even if it continued to sell at its current rate (about 13K a week) it would take years to reach 1 million real sales.

And with some acts, it does still form a significant part of the decision-making process for labels as to whether or not a certain artist should be retained on their books. Sales figures behind the positions are of course important too, as are tallies for albums, but the real 'impact' still comes with a higher peak on a weekly chart. With a bona fide band like The Stone Roses however, I rather doubt peak chart positions for their singles are that relevant, at least not to whether they can get signed and stay with a label, as they'd always get picked up by somebody! They've secured their long-term musical and cultural importance, which was never that derived from their chart performances anyway; admittedly they had a string of instant Top 10 hits in 1989-'90 and another in '94, but it was a clear early example of an act having built up enough cult cred to have a very committed fanbase, who would always buy anything released by their idols upon release, probably on all available formats, as a complete archive of all related material. That was often enough, especially in periods of slacker overall sales, to give rise to high peaks on their first week, but precipitous declines thereafter, as beyond the core fans, few were interested in buying the singles. With the Roses, I imagine that more casual appreciaters of their output would always buy the parent albums. Yet there were still enough hardcore followers to still buy up a few thousand copies of songs that were two or three years old when they finally got issued as singles - "I Wanna Be Adored" and "Waterfall" made the Top 20 in '91 and 40 in '92 respectively, and surely most takers must've had a copy of the '89-issued "The Stone Roses" LP by then which contained those tracks?! I presume the only reason a band like them would release singles at all is as a promotional tool to get their new content noticed, and hopefully translate into album sales, live gig ticket sales, and a generally good reception from critics that will ensure their reputation remains high among those who to them matter. And of course it is still a standard tool used by labels to get their acts 'out there'. Interestingly, it's probably roughly the same folk who bought "Fool's Gold", "One Love" etc who are buying "All For One" and "Beautiful Thing"now! They're still collecting, except they'll have a digital copy now as well as physical, as and when the recent singles are issued on CD or vinyl. It's just that with the increasing part streaming plays in the charts, big first-week sales splashes aren't so likely to attain a Top 10 or even 20 placing nowadays, and I suspect companies have now taken that on board. Fans of older established acts who are older now themselves are still likely to buy, possibly on physical as a priority, but less-likely to have assimilated regular streaming, so streaming won't figure that much in any assessment that is made of such acts and their future commercial viability. Plus, as Graham rightly says, it makes so little dosh that it's not that relevant anyway, other than just as a useful barometer of overall popularity among the core youth listening market, whose preferred acts tend to return very healthy streaming tallies.

Oh yeah; it's sadly nothing new - and increasingly very little in modern pop music is, because let's face it, after 60-odd years, most things that could constitute commercially-appealing music in the 3 or 4 minute format have already been done, often to death! It's very hard to be truly original in the pop confines now, even if you are a trained and proficient musician. Even those making original compositions have for the bulk of the last 25 years been recycling earlier music and just putting a bit of spin on it to re-sell it to a new generation of potential fans. Dance isn't the only genre where this applies. Whether it's cover versions, sound-alikes, sampling, recylcing is now firmly here to stay. Hell, even The Beatles and The Stones, both mega-commercial culture-defining bands that are always credited with musical and lyrical competence, launched their stellar careers with quite a few covers of American blues numbers, and their earlier material was patently them trying to sound like some of their 1950s forbears - something they've never denied. Actually, on reflection, with regard to 'Don't Call Me Baby', we shouldn't give the Italian guy too much credit either, as the bassline they sampled from his record, surely the most memorable part of the production as it carries the whole thing through, was a pretty-obvious cover of 'Aint' No Stoppin' Us Now' by McFadden & Whitehead - the only difference is that I think the Italians used a session musician to play it, almost note-for-note, rather than sample it direct. As you say, nothing new under the sun. But I just hate the idea of so-called 'artists' who really do little more than take a four or eight-bar riff and repeat it courtesy of a machine and call it a new song to receive too much respect or critical praise, however well-loved the results might've been. At least with the money, if it's all above board the original writers will receive a share of the royalties!

I agree that was a frequently-anachronistic sight on TV performances of dance tracks from that era, and of course it is true that live spinning of records on decks would not have been used in the studio to create a track like 'Don't Call Me Baby'. However, I suspect it was perhaps a nod to the fact that the entire song was in fact built around a little-known song by Italian singer Pino D'Angio, called 'Ma Quale Idea' from the early '80s. If you take a listen you will discover that bar the vocals and contemporary programmed rhythm, the hook and all other musical parts were directly lifted from this track, looped and edited, and simply sped-up. This was much the same money-for-old-rope technique that Spiller used on that other often so-well-regarded 2000 No 1 hit 'Groovejet (If This Ain't Love)', which was a fairly clumsily-hacked-up looping of excerpts from an equally-obscure disco track called 'Love Is You' by American diva Carol Williams from the late '70s, with the only original - and so creditable to the artists billed - part being Sophie Ellis-Bextor's vocal. As appealing on the face of it that these sort of tracks might be as catchy and danceable pop tunes, especially if they sound new, it simply won't do to credit the artists that produced them with any significant musical or compositional merit! Personally I don't see it as that tricky to lift an old disco lick, which most current audiences won't even recognise, put it through a sampler (as opposed to the decks on TOTP etc - looks marginally more exciting on stage than having an Akai propped-up on a desk!) to create a repetitive unimaginative edit based on a single riff, and then write some catch-all, easy-come-easy-go lyrics for a new vocalist to sing over the top, and then have kids assume they're wholly-responsible for it. All these plaudits for numerous hits from the 1990s and 2000s that routinely used this cheap trick make me despair, as the very things that rendered them at all worthy or memorable were usually the instrumental melodies that they ripped-off in the background! At least save the bigger credit for the original artist and writers who came up with the essential basis of the song from scratch, rather than some producer or DJ who is conversant with obscure dance numbers and how to operate technology. Don't get me wrong, there are some artists using sampling in a very creative manner, so that the original extract is barely recogniseable when it's blended in with other original music. But I'm afraid these chancers just cashed-in on a lazy but effective trend for entry-level chart hits that saved them from having to be that creative - and they still do, although such tracks are now mercifully far-less conspicuous in the charts now than they were then. Good luck to the vocalists who do write and perform the only novel parts of such hits, and perhaps carve a more genuine career on the back of it; sometimes talent will triumph longer-term. Happily, we're still hearing new music from the likes of Sophie E-B, but have heard nothing from Spiller since 2000!