AcerBen

Any risk of one of the new Eminem tracks doing well on streams?

Have you got a link.. can't find it. :heart:

Yes I think he did for the 2nd one but the 1st. Just listening to the song now (with VPN) and it's.. as good as the previous two. Should be in with a shot.

Ah yes that's it. More difficult but not impossible though? Their own website is able to automatically update the number of weeks a song and artist has spent in each section of the chart. I do think it's over simplifying saying YouTube makes TOTP not possible. It makes it less of a must-watch, appointment to view, but that doesn't mean nobody would dream of watching a show of live music. I think the way the chart has changed in the last 5 years is a much bigger problem.

I used to understand why they scrapped the top 200 and it made sense at the time, but I can't remember what it was now. Something to do with the way the rules work.

As I keep saying, the chart isn't just there for us. It's paid for by the music industry and used as a promotional tool. They didn't just introduce ACR etc because it made the charts boring to chart watchers. It was more that a slow chart is bad for the industry. And now that we've started mixing streaming & sales and coming up with different weightings then as far as keeping the chart as a list strictly based on pure numbers is concerned, the ship has sailed. Is a song that has been streamed the most times *always* the most popular song in the country? Maybe the number 2 song has been listened to by more individuals. Maybe the number 3 song has been the one most-searched for but has been let down by fewer "passive plays" because it's on fewer playlists. Maybe the number 4 song is only there because it's been released in 10 different remixes or 5 different physical formats. So I see no issue with tweaking the rules to make the chart fit for purpose - especially as there is already a pure streams chart available for those who just want to know which songs technically got the most streams.

The top 200 doesn't exist anymore. There is an alternative chart generated that does go way beyond 100 into the thousands, but it doesn't have ACR rules or maximum of 3 songs per artist etc, and it's not available to the public.

I think it could work as a monthly programme.. but it'd take a lot more than one show to change things

Actually yes on reflection you're probably right. If it does do a big number of downloads it's not really going to even matter how many streams it get because of course the download numbers aren't affected by ACR.

I completely agree with your point that it's ridiculous that new records that could be doing hundreds of thousands of streams a week just don't register anywhere on the chart - compared to the "old days" when you only needed 2,000 or so people to buy your record to make the top 100. There's so many records that come and go and "feel" like they've been some sort of hit - like they were A-listed on Radio 2, did some TV PAs and bounced around the iTunes chart for several weeks, but because they didn't take off on streams they don't even register a chart position and it just feels wrong. In a way it's good that the chart reflects genuine widespread popularity now more than it did, but I think people forget the chart actually isn't there for us - it's for the industry to use as a promotional tool. I don't think changing to a top 1000 is the answer, because you can't really use a chart position of #458 as something to trumpet about. They either need to have another look at the formula of the top 100, and kick out more of the old songs quicker, or revise/extend the Tuesday trending chart, and try to make it more of a "thing", perhaps by asking Radio 1 and MTV to do a weekly show on it. It's a good idea but it's not getting enough exposure.

Not a duet, but I immediately thought of when Pete Waterman asked Cliff Richard to appear on Band Aid II because he'd beaten Kylie & Jason to Christmas #1 the previous year. Who of course also sang on Band Aid II.

I'm pretty sure the label can ask for the sales to be split, which as you say, would be in the best interest if they want a #1. I see no reason why they wouldn't allow it when it's been done before.

Though if he did manage 4, they'd hold the record outright? But I believe them when they say it'll be the last one

Yeah and I think I'm right in saying that OCC will usually do what the record label asks them to when it comes to additional versions? Usually it's beneficial to combine all versions, but they have good reason to split them here. The feat. John Legend version for Comic Relief of Sam Smith's Lay Me Down springs to mind.

LOL can you imagine the conversation? "Thanks for the offer Justin, but your song is shit".

I'm sure it's a bit of both, and who can blame him? he certainly sounds passionate when he talks about the charity.

To be honest I'd rather Ladbaby were number 1 every Christmas with a different song than Mariah with the same bloody one every year

Probably a "long tail" of songs selling 1 or 2 copies

Christina Perri at number 2 today after being danced to on SCD last night!

I'm still expecting them to announce something in next few days.

Does seem a waste of the publicity though. And people would be on board with their mission to get 3 in a row.

It's mostly 7" singles now.. and at the top end some weeks it's probably getting close to download numbers! Single digit sales at the lower end though I imagine.

He only announced last year's one the Sunday before the Friday release, so there's still time.

They did a live link-up with Neil Fox just before 7pm on a Sunday night

The charts are there as a promotional tool for new music, paid for by the music industry. Not to tell us that people are listening to Christmas songs at Christmas.