Gambo

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!

This would be disastrous for me, and clearly plenty of others out there, who quite rightly see the option of purchasing music legally as a legitimate expectation, at least in the digital world if not the physical. It's not necessarily that one must be anti-streaming; personally I've not seen the need to gravitate towards it, but may do so in years to come. It's just that most of us surely would not wish to be forced to do it because the purchase option had been withdrawn wholesale. I'd also guess most consumers would prefer to have the option of either, and if we prefer buy-to-own - and there's several sound reasons why we would - then there'll be sufficient custom for downloads (and in the albums sector it seems, even CDs) to maintain these as viable formats. I could understand why they might terminate download sales sites if the market became so depleted that it wasn't worth the money invested to run them; I had to reluctantly concede to that when labels had effectively withdrawn CD singles en masse by 2010. But I never thought I'd be expecting a similar predicament with downloads come 2020! For my part, I don't really care if Apple iTunes shuts eventually, as I have never used their services, and so as long as other sites continue with the paid-for download option, I shall use them. That said, we can all recognise the massive impact it would have on the overall sales of downloads, given that iTunes continue to be the market leader, and the reality is that if Apple close off their download store, many people who've used it faithfully for many years will probably rather move to streaming via Apple than move to downloading from say Amazon. It will not help the format survive longer-term; quite the reverse. There's little doubt now that long before we reach the 2020s, audio streaming will dominate the music landscape almost entirely (at least in respect of individual tracks), and that in turn, download sales will decline as customers yield to the growing trend and start renting their music as a habit. But that should not mean that the download format must be hastily and wilfully killed off before it is due. However 'niche' it becomes by the close of the 2010s, it should still be a viable, available option. I would still be surprised if in four years it was in quite the dire position CD singles were in six years ago. I'm confident there'll be a hardcore and significant segment of the music-consuming market who will always want to buy-to-own, and so will render it worthwhile for at least some sites to continue with the MP3 for many years to come. Remember - we all thought CDs would kill vinyl; we all thought downloads would kill CDs; now we're assuming streaming will kill downloads. In the first two cases, history has shown that whilst one format may rapidly dominate the market and drastically-reduce fortunes of its once-all-conquering predecessor, it never quite finishes the job and kills it! The older formats, and indeed the more traditional habits of consuming music (i.e. buying rather than renting), may end up as niches, but tick over at the bottom of the scale, and in some instances actually hold their own, or even start to regain traction. CD albums have not yet depleted to the lowly levels predicted a few years ago. Vinyl, though consigned to a very low market share overall, has begun to show a marked resurgence in custom in the last three years. Hell, even CASSETTE - the format everyone confidently dismissed as dead by the mid-2000s, is now being talked about as having a mini-revival among some more hipsterish local markets! In fact, when one considers it objectively, in the pop/rock era (so since 1950), the only once-dominant format that has ever truly died a commerical death was the 78RPM shellac disc, which was eventually eaten whole by its 45RPM vinyl counterpart come the early 1960s! But even THAT took almost a decade to transpire from its original inception.

But I'm not persuaded that they would do this, as they don't want other charts to be too high profile in case they distract from the mainstream tabulation, which the OCC insist must be pushed as the chart of official record, as that way it will maintain its predominance as the single source of 'truth' for historical record, whatever rules and restrictions are applied to its compilation that might distort the fuller picture. In my view a compressed chart would not be truthful, and so I cannot support it, but if ever they do introduce such a thing to the main singles tabulation, I wouldn't be confident we'd continue to receive the full chart alongside it, as they'd want to present the compressed version as the 'real' chart that counts. They're still very guarded about anyone citing positions from the 'unofficial' uncompressed charts of the past. I daresay the OCC site, which is thankfully now far-better-endowed with various subsidiary charts, would perhaps carry the uncompressed Top 100 initially, but I fear we'd lose it eventually, and with it, our long-wished-for ability to get a virtually complete ranking of tracks simply by the number of sales and streaming units they've accrued that week, however tilted that might be for the moment in favour of well-established commercial hits that have very lengthy streaming lives.

Surely the answer should be to report both? Whilst it's probably appropriate and realistic from now on to expect overall unit tallies to be expressed inclusive of audio streaming equivalent 'sales' as well as paid-for true sales, the still very legitimate ongoing need for a breakdown of the contributions made by each method of consumption should also be reported alongside the combined figures. So, quite simply, whenever a to-date sales total is cited, either as part of a ranked chart, or just routine reportage in MW analysis etc, it should be cited as a combined figure, with an actual sales (or streams) figure in brackets, allowing anyone who is interested in continuing to measure paid-for sales only as separate from the artificial ones accrued courtesy of streaming to do so with a simple calculation. As this good habit was never instigated as a rule from the outset, I doubt it will ever now come into play, especially with regulasr reports citing assorted sales figures, such as those written by Alan Jones each week. But at the very least I'd like to think it reasonable to hope that in future, when publishing such things as all-time charts, or a list of million-unit-shifters, the OCC would give a clear indication as to the split between the two modes of music consumption.

No, quite correct. The current singles chart, and less-so albums, has always been more reflective of what the younger audience are buying, and now streaming, and so inevitably it must mirror the way their tastes are being guided, both in terms of the types of music they prefer, and now the way in which they choose to consume it. The end result is none-too-palatable for many of us I daresay who have rather disaparaging views about a lot of modern pop, and possibly even about the impermanence of streaming-for-rent rather than the more indelible buying-to-own. But the chart has to keep pace with that, whatever impact this may have on the movement of titles within its reach. Well, as long as the industry at large want it to reflect the truest picture possible, anyway - as ever, we must remind ourselves that charts are compiled primarily for their benefit, not that of music consumers or chart enthusiasts, and so it is they rather than us who will determine how it is concocted in future. I thought it might be an interesting exercise to get an idea of how much impact US-style restrictions on chart longevity would have on the UK Top 100, were they to be introduced as of this week's chart. It's a somewhat crude method, but I have taken the latest Top 200 Singles published in UK Charts Plus, and 'starred-out' the tracks which have spent 52 weeks or more between positions 26 and 50 (there were none), and - more noticeably - those with 20 or more chart weeks overall below No 50, reassigning positions to the titles that currently don't fall foul of these criteria. The results were as below: UK CHARTSPLUS – TOP 100 SINGLES 14 MAY 2016 – with US-style longevity exclusions applied! TW LW 2W Title - Artist Label (Cat. No.) High Wks 1 1 1 ONE DANCE - Drake featuring Wizkid & Kyla Cash Money/Republic (USCM51600028) 2 2 14 5 2 NEW THIS IS WHAT YOU CAME FOR - Calvin Harris // Rihanna Westbury Road/Columbia (GBARL1600460) 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 CHEAP THRILLS - SIA Monkey Puzzle/RCA (USRV81501212) 3 4 2 16 4 3 3 I TOOK A PILL IN IBIZA - Mike Posner Island (USUM71503636) 4 7 14 19 5 5 4 WORK FROM HOME - Fifth Harmony featuring Ty Dolla $ign Syco (USSM11600251) 12 11 2 10 6 4 9 CAKE BY THE OCEAN - DNCE Republic (USUM71514637) 5 6 4 14 7 7 6 LUSH LIFE - Zara Larsson TEN/Epic (SEWEE1500509) 16 16 3 20 8 12 23 NO MONEY - Galantis Big Beat/Atlantic (USAT21600941) 9 10 8 5 9 8 7 FADED - Alan Walker MER/Relentless (NOG841549020) 7 12 7 16 10 9 5 GIRLS LIKE - Tinie Tempah featuring Zara Larsson Parlophone (GB7TP1500034) 18 15 5 10 11 17 -- HOLD UP - Beyoncé Parkwood/Columbia (USSM11603176) 6 3 11 2 12 18 33 MIDDLE - DJ Snake featuring Bipolar Sunshine Interscope (USUM71515784) 11 8 12 9 13 10 8 7 YEARS - Lukas Graham Warner Bros (USWB11506516) 19 17 15 18 14 19 31 HAIR - Little Mix featuring Sean Paul Syco (GBHMU1600012) 10 9 14 3 15 25 27 PANDA - Desiigner Good/Def Jam (USUM71601094) 46 29 15 7 16 13 10 WORK - Rihanna featuring Drake Roc Nation/Virgin EMI (QM5FT1600116) 68 51 2 15 17 11 12 NO - Meghan Trainor Epic (USSM11600935) 15 14 11 9 18 14 11 FAST CAR - Jonas Blue & Dakota Positiva/Virgin EMI (GBUM71507621) 29 33 2 17 19 15 15 NOTHING LIKE THIS - Blonde featuring Craig David Parlophone (GBAYE1600002) 27 22 15 7 20 16 13 STRESSED OUT - TwentyOne Pilots Fueled By Ramen/Atlantic (USAT21500597) 24 21 12 18 21 28 24 DANGEROUS WOMAN - Ariana Grande Republic (USUM71601826) 21 19 17 8 22 20 14 LIGHT IT UP - Major Lazer featuring Nyla & Fuse ODG Because (QMUY41500014) 45 42 7 25 23 22 21 STITCHES - Shawn Mendes Island (USUM71500658) 44 41 12 37 24 21 16 ROSES - The Chainsmokers featuring ROZES Disruptor/Columbia (USQX91500801) 26 26 16 18 25 27 19 LOVE YOURSELF - Justin Bieber Def Jam (USUM71516761) 51 47 16 25 26 23 17 ME, MYSELF & I - G-Eazy x Bebe Rexha The Revels Group/G-Eazy/BPG/RCA (USRC11502211) 57 60 13 18 27 24 18 PILLOWT4LK - Zayn RCA (USRC11600069) 50 50 1 14 28 29 22 HYMN FOR THE WEEKEND - Coldplay Parlophone (GBAYE1501020) 36 40 6 16 29 34 44 THE SOUND OF SILENCE - Disturbed Reprise (USRE11500180) 8 5 29 4 30 32 25 SORRY - Justin Bieber 2 Def Jam (USUM71516760) 66 67 12 28 31 31 -- FORMATION - Beyoncé Parkwood/Columbia (USSM11600712) 13 13 31 2 32 30 20 HANDS TO MYSELF - Selena Gomez Interscope (USUM71513592) 31 39 14 19 33 33 -- SORRY - Beyoncé Parkwood/Columbia (USSM11603178) 30 27 33 2 34 59 37 POP STYLE - Drake featuring The Throne Cash Money/Republic (USCM51600032) -- -- 33 5 35 37 26 SAY YOU DO - Sigala featuring Imani & DJ Fresh Ministry Of Sound (GBCEN1600004) 60 65 5 11 36 42 40 DANCING ON MY OWN - Calum Scott Instrumental (UK6KW1500205) 14 23 36 6 37 35 -- 6 INCH - Beyoncé featuring The Weeknd Parkwood/Columbia (USSM11603179) 37 32 35 2 38 36 -- DON'T HURT YOURSELF - Beyoncé featuring Jack White Parkwood/Columbia (USSM11603177) 38 34 36 2 39 45 43 CLOSE - Nick Jonas featuring Tove Lo Safehouse/Island (USUM71602394) 52 55 39 6 40 44 -- DADDY LESSONS - Beyoncé Parkwood/Columbia (USSM11603180) 25 28 40 2 41 NEW TOO GOOD - Drake featuring Rihanna Cash Money/Republic (USCM51600088) -- -- 41 1 42 63 53 BOYS & GIRLS - will.i.am featuring Pia Mia Interscope (USUM71602635) 33 30 42 4 43 41 30 ALL MY FRIENDS - Snakehips featuring Tinashe & Chance The Rapper Hoffman West (GBARL1501370) -- -- 5 26 44 56 45 PARADISE - Benny Benassi & Chris Brown Ultra (USUS11600196) 39 45 44 4 45 40 -- FREEDOM - Beyoncé featuring Kendrick Lamar Parkwood/Columbia (USSM11603184) 28 25 40 2 46 NEW CONTROLLA - Drake Cash Money/Republic (USCM51600080) -- -- 46 1 47 48 38 WHAT DO YOU MEAN? - Justin Bieber 2 Def Jam (USUM71511919) -- -- 15 36 48 61 90 NEEDED ME - Rihanna Roc Nation/Virgin EMI (QM5FT1600118) -- -- 48 14 49 43 35 WHEN WE WERE YOUNG - Adele XL (GBBKS1500217) 62 64 9 22 50 72 78 SEX - Cheat Codes x Kris Kross Amsterdam Spinnin' (NLZ541600026) -- -- 50 4 ** 39 29 SECRET LOVE SONG - Little Mix featuring Jason Derülo Syco (GBHMU1500073) 35 37 6 21 51 68 104 I HATE U, I LOVE U - Gnash featuring Olivia O'Brien :):/Atlantic (USAT21601051) -- -- 52 3 52 46 36 FAMOUS - Kanye West Virgin EMI (USUM71603020) -- -- 33 7 53 58 64 I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER - Shawn Mendes & Camila Cabello Virgin EMI (USUM71516597) 20 24 54 19 ** 55 48 STAY - Kygo featuring Maty Noyes Kygo/Epic (SEBGA1500364) -- -- 20 22 ** 105 94 HOTLINE BLING - Drake Cash Money/Republic (USCM51500238) -- 72 3 40 ** 53 39 NEVER FORGET YOU - MNEK & Zara Larsson Digital Teddy/Virgin EMI (GBUM71504509) -- -- 5 34 54 NEW WITH YOU - Drake featuring PartyNextDoor Cash Money/Republic (USCM51600074) -- -- 58 1 55 54 41 I'M IN CONTROL - AlunaGeorge featuring Popcaan Island (GBUM71507516) -- -- 39 12 56 77 57 KISS IT BETTER - Rihanna Roc Nation/Virgin EMI (QM5FT1600115) 42 35 51 10 57 51 32 JUST LIKE FIRE - P!nk Walt Disney/RCA (USWD11676311) 17 20 32 3 58 76 71 IF IT AIN'T LOVE - Jason Derülo Beluga Heights/Warner Bros (USWB11600369) -- -- 62 5 ** 62 28 DESIRE - Years & Years Polydor (4709488) 56 70 22 60 ** 65 47 WHEN THE BASSLINE DROPS - Craig David x Big Narstie JEM/Speakerbox/Insanity (GBARL1501648) -- -- 10 23 59 57 -- SANDCASTLES - Beyoncé Parkwood/Columbia (USSM11603182) 48 48 57 2 ** 50 46 HISTORY - One Direction Syco (GBHMU1500114) 65 49 6 25 ** 64 50 ONE CALL AWAY - Charlie Puth Artist Partners/Atlantic (USAT21502915) 58 43 26 27 60 60 -- ALL NIGHT - Beyoncé Parkwood/Columbia (USSM11603185) 72 68 60 2 ** 79 59 JUMPMAN - Drake & Future Cash Money/Epic/Republic (USCM51500300) -- -- 58 32 ** 66 42 ADVENTURE OF A LIFETIME - Coldplay Parlophone (GBAYE1501022) -- 73 7 26 61 82 54 MAKE MY LOVE GO - Jay Sean featuring Sean Paul Kamouflage (AUBM01500588) -- 66 49 7 ** 75 55 SUGAR - Robin Schulz featuring Francesco Yates Tonspiel/Warner Bros (DEA621501059) -- -- 21 39 62 NEW GRAMMYS - Drake featuring Future Cash Money/Republic (USCM51600082) -- -- 73 1 63 52 -- PRAY YOU CATCH ME - Beyoncé Parkwood/Columbia (USSM11603175) 75 61 52 2 64 83 84 WILD THINGS - Alessia Cara Def Jam (USUM71504407) 41 44 75 8 65 71 51 LIKE I WOULD - Zayn RCA (USRC11600403) -- -- 30 8 66 NEW U WITH ME? - Drake Cash Money/Republic (USCM51600065) -- -- 77 1 67 NEW TRUE COLORS - Zedd & Ke$ha Interscope:Kemosabe (USUM71603628) 23 36 78 1 ** 74 56 BE RIGHT THERE - Diplo & Sleepy Tom Mad Decent/Because (USZ4V1500129) -- -- 8 30 68 86 77 DON'T LET ME DOWN - The Chainsmokers featuring Daya Disruptor/Columbia (USQX91600128) -- -- 77 8 69 NEW FEEL NO WAYS - Drake Cash Money/Republic (USCM51600067) -- -- 81 1 ** 67 67 CHANDELIER - SIA Monkey Puzzle/RCA (USRC11400498) 59 54 6 97 70 NEW HYPE - Drake Cash Money/Republic (USCM51600069) -- -- 83 1 71 69 -- LOVE DROUGHT - Beyoncé Parkwood/Columbia (USSM11603181) -- -- 69 2 72 NEW BURN THE WITCH - Radiohead XL (GBBKS1600071) 32 31 85 1 ** 73 52 BANG MY HEAD - David Guetta featuring SIA & Fetty Wap Parlophone (GB28K1500110) -- -- 18 27 73 NEW 9 - Drake Cash Money/Republic (USCM51600063) -- -- 87 1 ** 6 65 PURPLE RAIN - Prince & The Revolution Warner Bros (USWB10202261) 22 18 6 28 ** 84 58 HELLO - Adele 2 XL (GBBKS1500214) -- -- 13 28 74 78 34 MAN - Skepta Boy Better Know (GB7QY1500549) -- -- 34 3 ** 80 49 THE GIRL IS MINE - 99 Souls featuring Destiny's Child & Brandy Resilience/Nothing Else Matters/RCA (GB1101501440) -- -- 5 26 75 NEW STILL HERE - Drake Cash Money/Republic (USCM51600078) -- -- 92 1 76 NEW KEEP THE FAMILY CLOSE - Drake Cash Money/Republic (USCM51600061) -- -- 93 1 77 NEW WESTON ROAD FLOWS - Drake Cash Money/Republic (USCM51600070) -- -- 94 1 ** 100 66 HOW DEEP IS YOUR LOVE - Calvin Harris + Disciples Columbia (GB1101500748) -- -- 2 42 ** 90 73 SWEET LOVIN' - Sigala Ministry Of Sound (GBCEN1501213) -- -- 3 25 78 NEW CHILDS PLAY - Drake Cash Money/Republic (USCM51600084) -- -- 97 1 ** 92 75 LEAN ON - Major Lazer x DJ Snake featuring MØ 2 Mad Decent/Because (QMUY41500008) -- -- 2 62 ** 88 72 THE HILLS - The Weeknd XO/Republic (USUG11500738) -- -- 3 50 *** 97 83 SHUT UP + DANCE - Walk The Moon RCA (USRC11401949) 67 -- 4 53 *** 93 74 CAN'T FEEL MY FACE - The Weeknd XO/Republic (USUG11500741) -- -- 3 48 *** 94 81 LET IT GO - James Bay Virgin EMI (USUM71405265) -- -- 10 67 *** 133 114 TAKE ME TO CHURCH - Hozier 2 Rubyworks/Island (IEACJ1300031) 64 59 2 93 79 NEW FIRE & DESIRE - Drake Cash Money/Republic (USCM51600092) -- -- 104 1 *** 98 76 EX'S & OH'S - Elle King RCA (USRC11401950) 47 53 15 20 80 NEW REDEMPTION - Drake Cash Money/Republic (USCM51600072) -- -- 106 1 81 NEW BORED TO DEATH - Blink-182 BMG Rights (QMRSZ1600286) 53 58 107 1 82 NEW FAITHFUL - Drake featuring Pimp C & dvsn Cash Money/Republic (USCM51600076) -- -- 108 1 83 89 62 TEAM - Iggy Azalea Def Jam (USUM71602350) 71 62 62 7 84 85 -- FORWARD - Beyoncé featuring James Blake Parkwood/Columbia (USSM11603183) -- -- 85 2 *** RE-ENTRY WINGS - Birdy 14th Floor/Atlantic (GBAHS1300286) 40 52 8 51 *** 101 80 MY HOUSE - Flo Rida Poe Boy/Atlantic (USAT21500528) -- -- 59 20 85 95 61 THE SOUND - The 1975 Dirty Hit/Polydor (GBK3W1500429) -- -- 15 16 86 96 132 WAY DOWN WE GO - Kaleo Elektra/Atlantic (USAT21502123) 43 38 96 3 87 102 70 GET UGLY - Jason Derülo Warner (USWB11504036) -- -- 12 18 88 103 82 THE RIGHT SONG - Tiësto + Oliver Heldens featuring Natalie La Rose Musical Freedom/PM:AM/Virgin EMI (CYA111500132) -- -- 39 15 89 NEW VIEWS - Drake Cash Money/Republic (USCM51600094) -- -- 117 1 *** 106 91 BLACK MAGIC - Little Mix Syco (GBHMU1500046) -- -- 13 43 *** 109 92 PHOTOGRAPH - Ed Sheeran Asylum (GBAHS1400094) -- -- 15 98 90 118 136 RAGING - Kygo featuring Kodaline Kygo/Ultra/Epic (SEBGA1600314) 61 -- 56 5 91 125 134 COME DOWN - WSTRN Atlantic (GBAHS1600131) -- 71 121 7 92 129 116 WILD HORSES - Birdy 14th Floor/Atlantic (GBAHS1600023) 49 57 75 7 *** 119 97 MR. BRIGHTSIDE - The Killers Lizard King (USUM70503221) -- -- 10 454 *** 115 103 THINKING OUT LOUD - Ed Sheeran 3 Asylum (GBAHS1400099) -- -- 12 98 *** 107 88 EYES SHUT - Years & Years Polydor (GBUM71501268) -- -- 17 37 *** 116 93 679 - Fetty Wap featuring Remy Boyz RGF/300 (QMCE31500250) -- -- 20 44 *** 114 86 WANT TO WANT ME - Jason Derülo Beluga Heights/Warner Bros (USWB11503046) -- -- 14 50 *** 110 100 UPTOWN FUNK! - Mark Ronson featuring Bruno Mars 3 Columbia (GBARL1401524) -- -- 17 74 *** 113 87 IN2 - WSTRN East West/Atlantic (GBAHS1500457) -- -- 4 30 93 148 124 YOUTH - Troye Sivan Polydor (AUUM71501373) -- -- 96 15 94 130 115 CATCH & RELEASE - Matt Simons Republic (NLE3T1400002) -- -- 111 8 *** 120 85 RUNAWAY (U & I) - Galantis Big Beat/Atlantic (USAT21404266) 63 -- 4 55 *** 112 89 SHUT UP - Stormzy Stormzy (GBLFP1599790) -- -- 8 34 *** 117 95 HOLD BACK THE RIVER - James Bay Republic (USUM71413149) -- -- 2 76 95 138 101 LOW LIFE - Future featuring The Weeknd Freebandz/Epic (USSM11600557) -- -- 101 13 96 128 158 HIDE AWAY - Daya Artbeatz/Z (QM4ZV1500057) -- -- 128 11 *** 126 96 DON'T BE SO HARD ON YOURSELF - Jess Glynne Atlantic (GBAHS1500227) -- -- 1 40 *** 123 120 COMPANY - Justin Bieber Def Jam (USUM71516762) -- -- 25 25 *** 136 140 FIRESTONE - Kygo featuring Conrad Epic (SEBGA1400887) -- -- 8 71 *** 91 63 ARMY - Ellie Goulding Polydor (GBUM71505878) -- -- 20 20 97 124 106 GOLD - Kiiara Atlantic (USAT21503774) -- -- 106 8 98 NEW SUMMERS OVER INTERLUDE - Drake Cash Money/Republic (USCM51600090) -- -- 142 1 99 134 119 WHAT IF I GO - Mura Masa Polydor (GBUM71601261) -- 75 119 4 *** 141 105 KING - Years & Years Polydor (GBUM71406892) -- -- 1 62 100 186 165 KEEPING YOUR HEAD UP - Birdy 14th Floor/Atlantic (GBAHS1500572) -- -- 57 18 By my reckoning, I make that 45 titles ranked within the TRUE Top 100 that would fall for exclusion this week, under the two longevity rules set out above. The consequent re-assigning of positions for qualifying hits provides an uplift of 45 rungs on the chart ladder for the revised No 100 track - which is actually the 145th bestseller with no restrictions. Interestingly, at present no singles would fall foul of the recently-introduced 52-week threshold between 26 and 50, leaving the Top 50 itself completely intact. The first real position to be starred-out is No 51, with the 52nd true bestseller being the first as we descend downwards to benefit from an improvement in chart position thanks to the clearing-out of 20+weekers below 50. I wonder whether, for all those complaining about old hits clogging up the charts this solution would satisfy their appetites, as I'd guess in many weeks the Top 50 would still be the same, which of course leaves the Top 40-based chart broadcast unaltered. Far-more intrusive rules would need to be introduced to get any additional movement (or 'excitement' as some see it) in the top half of the OCC listings. The real artificial elevation of positions only really kicks-in gradually below 50, with 17 titles being removed between the revised No 51 and 75 echelon, and a further 28 that have been pulled from 76 to 100. Saying that, the new entries do receive a significant boost, increasing the further down one travels and the more oldies are starred-out - so the first below No 50 - Drake's 'With You' improves modestly from a No 57 to No 54 arrival, yet 'Summer's Over Interlude' (needless to say this week also by Drake!), which makes its maiden appearance at a lowly (and bar Charts Plus, un-published) debut at No 142 in real terms, would instead shoot up to a No 98 starting point. I have to say that having actually assessed its effects, the so-called benefits of such a scheme seem even less to my mind than I'd previously thought. But doubtless there'll be some on here who will prefer the new-look, busier but artificially-contrived 'Hot' 100 to the existing, logjammed but truthfully-compiled 'Top' 100.

I am firmly on the "Top 100 should be the true Top 100" camp, with no exclusions, and as few a eligibility rules as possible, just because the singles and albums charts are meant to be - simply - rankings of the biggest-selling (I now use that term to mean paid-for purchases and rented streams) titles available in that week. The tortuous combining of true sales with audio streams was a complication that personally I still disagree with, although accept the reasoning for (and the reality that it can never return to actual sales alone), but for all the arguments about adjusting the mathematically-convenient ratio of 100 streams to 1 'sale', I don't feel the formula is presently in need of a huge change. I would prefer it if people still regarded paid-for copies as their primary means of consuming their music, but the trend is clearly in favour of streaming, and as long as the tendency remains for titles to build and decline for longer in that format than they tend to on sales (at least in respect of single tracks), then there will be the propensity for a slower-moving, less-diverse chart. I agree it would be ideal to have more of a balance of newer titles with older ones, and appreciate why some people feel it would stimulate greater interest in the charts. But how much wider public interest is there in them now anyway? Those who care most - users of this and similar online fora - know that if we wnat to see a sales-only, or streams-only tabulation, the OCC website/Music Week carries that information weekly. Granted, these are subsidiary charts, not the official mainstream combined listing, but they do give vital indications of the differing fortunes of titles on the two sides of the consumption spectrum, and as long as we have this, those more keen on one than t'other can follow that chart instead of the combined one. All are fairly slow at present of course, but that is the nature of the market, and until that alters, the charts must wherever possible reflect that reality, however unpalatable that is to some. I disliked the ludicrously-excessive turnover and brief chart runs of the late 1990s/early 2000s, but had to put up with it until the advent of downloads and more organic sales patters returned to the fray, and therefore ended up being mirrored in the weekly charts. Until as recently as December 2006 we still had charts that were subject to various - often very intrusive - restrictions that distorted the true picture. Let's not start campaigning to go back to that less than a decade later. I know that for some the truth hurts, but it's better that than having a falsified tabulation of hits, which could be considered a 'Hot' 100 US-style, but not a 'Top' 100 as it has certain titles de-selected by dint of arbitrary (and in the case of Billboard ever-changing) rules. And I should just mention that this view is purely about the charts - not the music that occupies their positions. I find that nowadays the bulk of the 50 or so single downloads I buy each year stay out of the Top 100, sometimes 200! But I would never consider artificially-fixing the charts to somehow make it appear that my preferred tracks, artists or genres are enjoying a more elevated profile in the sales/streams lansdcape than they actually are!

Personally, I believe that for the duration - possibly the next few years - the ratio should remain as it is, as for all its mathematical convenience and arbitrariness, it isn't the worst approximation of equating audio streams into notional sales. My complaint, shared by many chart and music watchers, is that there should've been no need for this calculation in the first place, had it not been insisted-upon by the industry that the mainstream singles and later albums charts must reflect both sectors in a combined form. It was never going to be anything less than an unsatisfactory fudge as fundamentally, renting a digital track an unlimited number of times on-line is distinct from buying a track once, either digitally on-line or physically in-store. Whilst there were notable differences between the old tangible formats and virtual new one (pricing and constant availabilty being the most obvious), the integration of the download alongside CDs etc in the 2000s was at least more even, as it still allowed a like-for-like comparison on a broad basis between figures for pre and post-integration titles, i.e. a paid-for purchase was required to contribute towards a chart placing regardless of format. Audio streaming, while still the same product, is renting rather than buying, and so are two separate measurements of popularity. I'm not arguing that streaming shouldn't be regarded as a major means of measuring modern musical appreciation; in the 2010s it is manifestly not just about sales any more. I just wish they could've been brave enough to keep the two tabulations for the two sectors separate, in the expectation that eventually (by 2020 at latest) the streaming chart would eclipse the sales chart in terms of national importance, while the latter would still be continued as more of a subsidiary to the former, which would at some point be arbitrarily adopted as the chart of record. This to me is akin to the steady transferral from sheet music charts, which measured sales, but of actual musical scores of popular titles rather than audio recordings (and therefore was a totally discrete product), and were gradually overtaken by the range of then-new record sales-based tabulations in various music publications. Sheet music charts continued, but just became a very niche sector compared to the burgeoning recorded music sales charts, which by the late 1950s were plainly the dominant method of determining popularity of currently-available songs. In the same way as it would've been barmy to try and combine sheet music sales with recorded music sales at that time, it seems similarly stupid to attempt it with sales of recorded music and recorded music rentals. Neverthless, however true and sensible the above seems, the decision has been made to combine these two different ways of consuming music, in the name of creating a singular chart that can be seen as a 'single source of truth' rather than having two competing official tabulations. I can see why they made that choice, and so it now has to be lived with, whatever impact it has on relative unit tallies for different titles, ability to compare current with past performance, and the way titles move around the Top 100/200 weekly chart - i.e. very slowly in the case of extremely-commercial pop hits. Don't change the chart, just because it doesn't suit some people's tastes. And they won't, until such time it is decreed by the industry at large that it is broadly in their interest to make a change, for the charts primarily serve them not consumers or fans. I am dismayed to see the exponential growth of streaming, as it seems so impermanent and intangible, but let's be honest: had we been able to centrally-measure the number of times people actually listened to the songs they had bought in the pre-2010s era, I think it would've been factored-in to chart compilation one way or another many moons ago, as there is no real way one can argue that the number of times someone streams a song does not have a meaningful bearing on how popular that recording is overall. It is simply a secondary means of assessing that popularity on a relative basis, however clumsy combining returns with true sales may be. Yes, it can be manipulated to create sometimes disproportionate outcomes which can affect chart positions, but t'was ever thus with sales too. That can never be mitigated against completely. I just hope that in the quest for measuring song popularity, the concept isn't taken to its broadest definition. If they are, things may get yet-more-complicated chart-wise by the eventual factoring-in to the official rankings of video streams, streams of unofficial performances etc. That would take the singles and albums charts too far away from their roots in my book. But I'm not betting against that becoming the case by the next decade. If it does, I'm cancelling my subscription to UK Charts Plus and I'm outta here!

REEEALLY petty but hopefully still worthwhile observation re the Snap! entry: the date the chart in which it became the best-selling dance single was issued should read 19th July 1992, not 17th. None of this charts being revealed on a Friday nonsense back then!

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.. ^_^