Gambo

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 It's just that most of us surely would not wish to be forced to do it because the purchase option had been withdrawn wholesale.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that it wasn't worth the money invested to run them; I had to reluctantly concede to that when labels had effectively withdrawn CD singles en masse by 2010.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.. ^_^

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!