Gambo

I believe OA/OS must be a better approach from the consumer's - well, the downloader's - perspective, as it means one can buy the track just aired on radio or TV to own immediately, if that is one's preference. But despite Sony's brave move to revisit it, I am not convinced that the other majors will necessarily follow, as they are plainly still so wedded to the front-loaded marketing strategy for keenly-anticipated new singles in order to maximise their opening chart position. And it's little wonder when we still find that despite people claiming they get bored and move on before the track is available legally, and the option of the illegal route, AND the steady decline in downloading in favour of streaming, a significant number of people will still either pre-order or buy in that first week after 6-8 weeks waiting, and thereby maximise the initial chart entry position, in the most successful cases enough to make Number One. Even if Sony succeed in demonstrating that tracks can be broken low and eventually build to a respectable chart peak - which we already know can and does happen as we see in unforeseen slow-burn hits and also those available digitally as album tracks before release as a single per se - I think it will be a long while yet before the others choose to surrender that first-week-peak approach, especially as has been pointed out with acts with keen but limited fanbases who mostly buy (teen pop acts mainly), as they are much-less-likely to fall short on chart peak and overall sales without that pre-release promotional build-up. Lest we forget, it's why the OCC were moved to alter the chart survey week - most labels wouldn't countenance the notion of their precious and carefully-marketed new singles having only two days' sales before their maiden chart position was calculated. In most cases sales will even out over the first couple of weeks after a Friday release, and hits will see a large leap upwards in week 2 when the remainder of the first full week's sales are factored-in, but as there's a chance that 2nd week spot won't be as high as if it'd had the full 7 days of sales, they didn't want to risk that. Consumers are seemingly in no greater position to dictate a track's chart performance through audio streaming either, seeing as most singles are held back in that sector until the same week in which they are released to buy - even though we've had examples of hotly-tipped hits entering low on streaming points alone, pottering around and then still vaulting to No 1 or 2 when finally available to download. I think we will gradually see some relaxation on this front though, as it has been proven that the peak chart showing may not necessarily be damaged by pre-purchase streaming and a few preliminary weeks floating around the 41-100 end of things. Also, as streaming is picking up pace and is favoured by younger, commercial hit-friendly but often impatient consumers who increasingly will not buy a track and look to 'rent' it online at the soonest opportunity, I think we will begin soon to see pre-download streaming a more common feature. But earlier release to buy as well as stream? Sony will likely be on their own for a long haul on this - and may yet decide once more than it isn't working well enough for them and revert to the predictable front-loading policy. After all, it's probably all that most current record execs know how to do and feel secure with, given that it's the model that was first pioneered in the late 1980s and has dominated the singles market since 1995 seeing through the seismic shift from CD to download, and seemingly now the further shift away from buying altogether. By the time the majors decide to give up on the pre-release promo, download sales will have dwindled to a more marginal percentage of the overall market and so it will only matter to a relatively small sector of us who intend to continue buying what we like to play back whenever rather than just listening while logged-on.

Yes indeed, and like so many dance songs of this period and beyond that people no doubt thought were entirely creditable to the artist billed as having the hit, the most accomplished and recognisable element of the track was in fact a total rip-off - and, as it was the early '90s, a James Brown rip-off: check out 'I'm Shook' from his 1969 LP 'It's A Mother'. Carries the whole thing, and it's a shame more people weren't aware of the lack of originality of some dance acts at that time, whether or not they liked the end result or thought that the re-inventions of other people's work was an artform in itself. This track also contains numerous other samples, from obscure sources, interwoven so that it's pretty tough to establish which parts of it were created from scratch by C&C. But I guess to most clubbers musical pedigree or origin counts for very little. This is a nostalgic thread though, and for all my critique about the recycling and repetition in dance by this time, I can't deny that I have a considerable number of these hits in my Top 40 singles selections somewhere... Keep up the no-doubt time and labour-intensive work on it. Only eight years or so to go.. ^_^

I must say, as a long-term chart follower, I never thought I'd see the day when we'd have no chart broadcast on a Sunday afternoon, or that the survey week would cease to run from Sunday to Saturday - at least until such time as either the concept of singles themselves ceased to exist, and/or there were no longer any charts being compiled. Even as recently as the beginning of this year I hadn't even contemplated that there'd be any such fundamental shift in chart compilation, with or without a 'global release day'. Whilst I can see the arguments for it, accept it has some merit, and can tolerate the change, especially as I don't listen to the show regularly any more, I still don't feel this move was strictly necessary, and although it's being spun as a chance to reinvigorate the chart itself, I fear it can only undermine interest in it further as fewer people will be available to hear it being revealed (at least live - which let's be honest is when it matters most). Also, with the announcement of SIX midweek flashes instead of four, we'll have an almost daily chart update and so come Fridays most of those who care will likely know what the final results will be in most weeks anyway, making the 'Big Reveal' element even less-relevant.

On the same tack as those tracks re-mixed and issued in their danced-up guise for single release, Freddie Mercury's 1993 No 1 'Living On My Own'. Okay, Mercury had more-than-flirted with electronic production and dance music affectation during his earlier solo years, and lest we forget was no stranger to No 1s as a member of Queen. But the posthumous re-mix of this track in a very studio-based Europop early '90s style stood out as being wildly distinct from any of his previous releases (even those issued after his death) and was by-far his biggest solo single in the UK. Another one off the top of the head is Maroon 5's 2011 monster-hit 'Moves Like Jagger' - a massive departure from their soft-rock guitar-based sound that originally broke them and yielded several radio and sales-friendly hit singles in 2004, subsituting it with swathes of over-produced studio effects with barely no acoustic instruments in evidence at all. Result = not quite a No 1 but still a million-seller. And needless to say they've never looked back. Why would they now they know where the real money's at....

Perhaps so, although arguably no sillier than having an abridged 'taster' show for the new chart as soon as it became available on a Tuesday lunchtime, and then following it with a far-fuller recap countdown the following Sunday, by which time that chart was already one week out of date - as was the case for many years until they were able to catch-up and make the new chart available by Sunday evening from early October 1987. I recall that many people - especially those who couldn't catch the Tuesday reveal or maybe didn't even know it existed as they were usually at school - assumed the Top 40 broadcast on Sundays between 5 and 7 was the chart for the week coming, as is the case now, rather than the one just going. I suppose this matters little, except for those who swear blind they remember a certain song being Number One on a certain occasion - usually a birthday - during their formative years, but are actually incorrect in their recollection, as they didn't realise the chart they'd heard ahead of that week on the Sunday was for the previous seven days, and the No 1 had since changed hands - which they would only have known if they'd listened to the Tuesday show, or perhaps if they'd seen Top Of The Pops on the Thursday. Seems quaint to reflect on it now with the plethora of online and other sources from which one can glean not just the latest chart based on the last week's survey but also mid-week flashes from the same week, but for many that is how it was. I seldom got a chance in the '80s to hear the Tuesday reveal, waiting until the Sunday show when I was free to load-up the TDK D-90 in readiness for the 'new' numbers! Not that I'm slavish listener to the Top 40 nowadays by any stretch, but every so often I would listen in, as I'm often at a loose end on a Sunday afternoon. It was at least good to know one had the option if at all interested. Once it moves to Friday, like those Tuesday shows all those years ago, I'll almost certainly never catch it - not live anyway, and that's when it counts most. But at least that will be because I'm out and about carousing after work rather than being stuck at school!

Personally I don't - yet - stream music and still prefer actually owning a track, if I like it enough, especially at 99p or less. That said I am hardly representative of the wider market, as I've always tended to be someone who sticks Luddite-like to what I've become used to and if it ain't broke I don't fix it until pushed. I was still buying CD singles as late as 2010 and it was only really the complete domination of the download in that sector (and eventually upgrading my mobile phone to a recent enough model) that successfully tipped me over to the virtual means of buying/listening to music from 2011 onwards. I don't feel like making another transition just now so it'll probably be 2020 before I move with the times! Actually, now I stop to consider it, I'm still shockingly 20th century, at least in the way I listen to a lot of my music from that era - I only download current (2010s) singles along with a selection from the 2000s I missed on CD. Pre-2001 it was mostly Top 40 stuff transferred to rewriteable CDs (which I only took up in the late 1990s), sometimes from CD, old cassettes or vinyl, and I still have those today; not owning a home computer has meant I've never bothered transferring thousands of tracks onto a MP3 player!! As for albums, I never download them and still stick to the CD as one is usually still marketed, and available in a local HMV. Although in fairness I'm nearly-all singles-driven and probably buy one LP a year. Maybe I'm not much of a music fan after all? More likely though it's the relentless march of new tech that turns me off. I do concede streaming has its place though, and its rise, increasingly at the expense of the download, will continue for many years to come and its impact on the charts will consequently be reflected.

Broadly I would also support the application of rules along the lines of those mentioned above, if there is insufficient time for all 40 tracks. To be honest, for many years I would never have supported anything less than the entire 40 in the chart broadcast, mainly because the chart's turnover was so high, with almost half the 40 being new entries, many of which were unlikely to even appear in the next week's show, meaning their first week on chart would likely be their only airing on the chart broadcasts. But now, with far-fewer new entries, more climbers, and numerous hits sticking around for many months, playing about 25 of the 40 does make sense and avoids the repetition of having to wade through songs which love or hate them have been loitering around the Top 40 for ages and will have been played to death. Mind you, this is all likely to be academic for me; I don't listen to the charts regularly even now, and when it moves to Fridays I shall probably never tune in, as I'm nearly always in a pub somewhere during that time! I am saddened by the passing of what has been a 53.5-year tradition of a full chart broadcast on a Sunday afternoon though. Truly the end of an era.

I have a feeling that the Walk The Moon single also derived some of its chart units from actual download sales to register at No 75 on the combined chart, also via Amazon, although most other sites didn't issue it for sale until Sunday 7th June hence its meteoric rise to No 8 this week. But then this thread is entitled "little to no copies sold" so it's perfectly correct that 'Shut Up And Dance' should feature here - the vast majority of its chart units until last week were derived from audio streams.

Really? I had always thought that all official sales-to-date figures - for singles anyway - were now inclusive of audio stream equivalents. I'll have to investigate this, though I hope you're right...

This almost sounds a little too good to be true doesn't it pop-pickers?! I think the key to managing our expectations appropriately on this one is the disclaimer regarding their selective approach to responses - one has to surmise that they knew they'd be getting inundated with innumerable different queries from chart enthusiasts, and so made sure there was no legitimate expectation that everyone's question will get an answer. I think we may find that specific sales-related queries, or those asking for too much detail such as lists of 'starred-out' entries etc, will fall on deaf ears and they will probably just conveniently ignore these and other 'difficult' issues, including those around the various inaccuracies/inconsistencies we've all spotted over the years. That said I completely agree that if nothing's ventured nothing can be gained, so it's worth a punt. I do hope they'll surprise us all with their responsiveness and candour! I do think a good lead question would be to ask for a list of million-sellers to date that excludes all streaming-derived 'sales' though; I think that info would be easy for them to mine and I can't see a substantive reason as to why they'd object, other than I suppose to protect the idea among the wider public of the streaming-inclusive seven-figure sums being "official".

It had to be a pre-emptive strike, after the embarrassment of dismissing illegal downloads for so long and then when they woke up a belated rush to try and monetise the format, and then work out how to introduce any emergent legal market into the mainstream singles chart. They didn't want to be caught pants-down again, and so having reached a consensus that streaming was showing exponential growth and was likely the 'next big thing' with consuming digital music, if anything they were a little too quick-off-the mark in integrating audio streaming with the sales chart. The problem with the integration of the download market into the physical was that the OCC had to phase it in in three steps which in the end took 20 months, and in the process made far more of a mockery of the main singles chart than was necessary. Initially, from 23 April 2005 only download sales for titles available physically in the last 52 weeks could be counted. Then, from 18 March 2006 download sales for titles available physically in a week's time could be counted, but this was offset by a woeful decision to exclude them again from two weeks after any deletion of the physical release. All these moves were designed to try and appease competing voices within the industry, and as it is they who have influence on the way the charts are run that was understandable, but the chart was very partial and failed to reflect the rapidly-rising digital market properly until 13 January 2007 when sales of both formats at any stage could be counted regardless. Looking back at that mess, even those of us who felt that combining streaming and sales in the mainstream tabulation was pushed through somewhat prematurely given the still-resilient state of the downloads sector, we should at least be thankful that once they'd decided to integrate them, they did so cleanly and on a complete basis, with no daft exemptions or sops. Okay the ratio of 100 streams to 1 sale is arbitrary and for many two just don't compute on any basis, but it was a clear and easy measure. Despite these teething problems, from 23 Apr '05 one can see some slow-down in the chart as regards the length of time many singles would remain on the Top 75. Whilst climbs to a peak were yet to return en masse, with most entries still being at peak, decline could be every much more graceful thanks to the ongoing trickle-sell of the download format. From 18 Mar '06 climbs, at least on week 2, inevitably became more common where still-significant first-week physical sales kicked-in on a title already available at least a week before to download, and from 13 Jan '07 climbs became as common as instant peaks as download sales steadily built towards a physically-driven peak and then quite likely a very steady withdrawal, in the case of some of the big-hitters. As CD sales dissipated and effectively left the equation for most releases, all forms of chart behaviour and movement could be seen based on download performance alone, and so it's hard to characterise the charts since the late '00s. But I think most would agree, downloads did and still do slow down what had become in the late physical era a dizzying turnover of singles. Many welcomed this, as one can more-readily follow and get familiar with the bona fide established hits, yet it's not boring at the top - still plenty of No 1/Top 10 entries etc as well as long-runners and slow-burners. Although I see on some sites that some are now starting to bemoan this trend and are yearning for the constant 30-new-entry Top 75 weeks, numerous high debuts and rapid declines that typified the mid '90s to mid '00s! They are likely to become even more disconsolate with the official combined chart, because the more it takes precedence, audio streaming can only slow movement down even more. It's already showing outside the Top 20 in particular, with numerous huge commercial hits and radio-favourites perennially bobbing back up and down the rungs. An instant sales hit may take several weeks to blossom as an equivalent streaming success, if ever it does so. Apologies - a bit off-topic now.

Fiesta - I think you're probably correct on that. Maybe it's just old school nostalgia for the concept of buying singles, but it is hard to envisage people giving up almost entirely on purchasing digital tracks, at least in the way that they rapidly lost heart with physical between 2000 and 2010. Part of that is because a large portion of consumers have always bought their music and are happy to do so, albeit at today's rock-bottom prices, and probably see a little more certainty in owning the file rather than just streaming it. People do like to own, and not everyone will listen to enough on streaming sites to justify the subs, or wnat to put up with the free option with all the tiresome ads. It's not like the clear distinctions between a CD and a download, where the former, while tangible and more traditional, could not realistically compete with the latter which was so cheap and so convenient to obtain in comparison. Having to go to a store and pay a possible £2.99 or even higher for a single track, with perhaps one or two others which you may or may not want, was never going to compete. People may consider that more worthwhile for an album featuring perhaps 12 tracks for a tenner, hence the CD's 60% share of the albums market even today, but with singles, downloads were king and that isn't going to change overnight. Download sales will creep down as the rest of the 2010s unfold, but I don't think it will look like such a dated method of procuring single tracks in 2020 as buying a CD single did in 2010. Just look at the sales figures for the No 1s of the last year; still pretty healthy on average with frequent six-figure amounts shifted in a week. It's the market overall that is shrinking, as the total singles sold each week compared to a year ago consistently show. But it's not a collapse. Hopefully we might see a market where sales are only modestly-depleted per release, coupled with a healthy streaming sector to complement it. Best of both worlds. As long as they don't introduce video streaming to the chart though - to my mind that isn't even the same product as an audio single as someone could just as easily be streaming it on YouTube because they like the video clip but actually wouldn't listen to or buy the song on its own. A single is an audio song first with any video as a back-up to it, and the minute video streams are allowed to encroach, that really is it for me and the official chart!

Some very worthy points made from both sides of the argument, and also some who clearly are in two minds as to the advantages and disadvantages of this development. I don't want to rehearse all the aspects of this difficult debate over again, but all I will say is that it's all very well us saying we want to continue the million-selling singles table based only on actual paid-for purchases, but it is already apparent that official sources are no longer disclosing those tallies. The only time we receive a full breakdown of sales and streams contributing to an overall chart 'sale' is in respect of the week's Number One. Almost without exception all other titles' weekly returns, or to-date totals, are given as a single figure inclusive of streaming-equivalent 'sales' and actual paid-for ones. Sadly, that includes the so-called million-sellers list. So, even if as I personally would prefer, we elect to maintain a sales-only tabulation for th purposes of this thread, where do we propose to obtain the necessary information from (unless one of you has a link to someone who can supply it off-the-record)?! Those of us who ideally want to keep tabs on 'true' sales of a million or more without the arbitrary addition of streamed listens as if they can somehow be converted meaningfully to an individual purchase likely feel that this is important because (i) it allows a direct like-for-like comparison with earlier sales-only feats, and (ii) the concept of a true sale is fundamentally distinct from an audio stream, which is an entirely different way of consuming the product. I accept that streaming is important enough to take account of now, and the picture can't remain sales-only forever if we're to assess a broader capture of songs' level of appreciation amongst the public. But the two should not be continually conflated, especially as I suspect most punters don't know that 'sales' include audio streams now, and so to call something a million-seller is plainly misleading. As mentioned earlier, terminology at least needs to be amended, even if the result is something that is less-well understood by the majority of observers. When it comes to all-time achievement lists, surely we should allow for more than just one. Sales should remain as per tradition, while audio streaming impact can always be measured separately and as it grows, the list of tracks streamed more than 100million times etc will burgeon, while the tracks selling 1 million or more will tail off as sales lose their dominance. I don't think that is such a poor solution, and accept that one will eventually rise to supplant the other in terms of relative interest and importance over the coming years. However, these two different activities already seem to be permanently conflated in all reports and analysis we read about singles performance, just because they deal with the same product. A meaningful distinction should be retained between the two types of consumption, albeit that we now have a combined mainstream chart like it or not, and that a singular table reflecting wider popularity across the two platforms obviously makes sense as a more convenient 'single source of truth' from the industry's perspective. I soon reconciled the sense behind digital sales being integrated into the physical sales chart a decade ago, because despite one being tangible and the other virtual, they were essentially still the same product - a singular audio recording of a song - being procured via a paid-for purchase, thereby denoting that person's declaration of interest in that product. We were still dealing with measuring performance by sales, not quite like-for-like of course but it still boils down to a copy of a recording bought to own. Yet I still wanted to see how the physical-only and digital-only markets were performing away from the combined rankings. Sadly the former was only made available for a few years after 2005 as the physical market continued to decline rapidly, but it proved that sooner or later, the old ways will be dropped from public view, which is a shame for the small number of us still interested in knowing about it, however niche the sector has become. I have found it far-harder to reconcile the chart taking in audio streams, not because I am against reflecting broader popularity per se, but because they're simply not like-for-like ways of consuming the same product and felt that two rival charts would serve it better, with the streaming one probably becoming the table of importance by the end of the decade. I did learn to live with the main chart no longer being sales based as I realise the industry won't go for two rival official singles charts, but that was sweetened by the continuationof the separate sales and streams tabulations on the OCC site. Preferably far-more detail on breakdowns of true sales and streaming units would be given too, enabling us to make sense of the contribution each makes to a single's overall chart figure, but it seems we're out of luck on that already. I would favour Buzzjack chart enthusiasts trying - if it were possible - to maintain three tallies in respect of all-time official singles performance: most-sold, most-streamed, and a combined unit figure as per the 100:1 ratio agreed for the weekly singles chart formula (i.e. the 'official' million-sellers list we get now). That way, even if they were only updated/published once at the end of each chart year, those who do care for the distinctions can be happy. My worry is they will gradually cease bothering to mention the 'true' sales of titles, and reduce the sales chart until they drop it altogether, leaving us entirely unaware of what is happening in sales, however small. By 2020, we may have very little to go on at all.

As a matter of historic record and objective analysis, Union J do have an unenviable achievement in being the first to manage a sales-only Number One but miss out on its equivalent on the combined sales and streams mainstream chart. Some people are assuming they must be ruing the day that they opted not to offer their track on audio streaming, but I think it is clear that had they done so, they still would've missed out on a combined No 1, as the initial week of streaming wouldn't have been that impactful and sales would certainly have been less had the streaming option been available (the reason why their label chose to keep it sales-only was of course to maximise its chances of securing a chart-topper in a week of relatively weak competition). Unfortunately for them, Ed Sheeran's enduring appeal in the streaming sector of all his tracks from 'X' was still too much to fend-off, and in the 'combined chart' era, that can make all the difference. Saying all that, this could be a case of no publicity is worse than bad: Union J's single will, for chart enthusiasts at least, live longer in the memory than many authentic chart-toppers in that it was the first - probably of many to come - to be denied an 'official' No 1 thanks to the introduction of audio streaming criteria at the end of June this year. In a sense, that makes the song far more significant in chart history than it ever would be in musical history, given that it is inoffensive but entirely generic in terms of composition, performance and production. 'Thinking Out Loud' on the other hand may not be musically innovative, but I believe it will likely live far longer in the average memory than 'You Got It All' as it is arguably a superior and more distinct piece lyrically, by an artist who I think will prove to have far-greater longevity. Moreover, it will also be readily-recollected by chart buffs too, for it is now not only the track that took longest from initial chart entry to reach No 1, but also holds the record for a return to the top after the longest period in the chart - 24 weeks.

Probably because they're increasingly seen by many younger consumers as outmoded and old-fashioned, and the older residual market that kept the style alive in the 1980s and '90s are either no longer with us, or at least are no longer buying singles, likely due to them not being so able or willing to adapt to the predominantly digital way we've been led. All will have noticed the way that studio production, danceable rhythms and their attendant genres have steadily taken over the commercial singles market over the last few years replacing arguably more merited concerns, such as quality or originality of composition, melody and lyrical literacy etc. Programmed rather than performed music has taken over hugely and has left even the uptempo and traditionally-teen-friendly guitar and rock-driven acts out in the cold, seldom with a Top 100 or even 200 placing. MOBO is also king now, which leaves the sort of Celine Dion-ish type of hit similarly-stranded. It seems it has simply become less and less 'cool' among the modern singles buyer/streamer to favour slower, traditionally-performed and composed romantic love songs. Perhaps for the few fans left, there is some hope on the horizon as the trusty ballad hasn't quite lost its appeal chart-wise; John Legend's 'All Of Me' was a really notable recent example that bucked the trend, along with Passenger's 'Let Her Go', Christina Perri's 'Jar Of Hearts' and Idina Menzel's 'Let It Go' which I think qualify under the balladic banner. But these aren't enough to necessarily suggest a trend. And let's face it, none are really reminiscent of the 'big productions' routinely troubling the charts in previous decades. I never thought I would miss them I must say, but amongst all this processed dross a decent power ballad is just the tonic we need!