Grandwicky

Exactly what I keep saying, unique users hitting a 'cap' would firstly makes things drop gradually and it will more accurately reflect the AMOUNT of people who like a song rather than how much people are streaming a song which has always been what the official chart is about.

37 Bring Me The Horizon - MANTRA Great comeback :wub: Drown was #1 on iTunes and peaked at #17 officially so hope this can at least chart despite dropping on a Tuesday!

I do agree with this, it's not specifically a Hot Hits problem but I do wonder if over time playlists that change more often might become more popular. I think the way streaming works in general is something that will gradually sort itself out though with regards to the range of genres and the ability for non-established artists to get towards being amongst the top songs more easily. I did e-mail the OCC to ask what their stance was on possible new rules in the future like a cap on how many plays each unique user can play a song before no more count and seeing if pre-made playlist plays might count less but as expected no reply to that as of yet. The problem is that there is so much potential here and people that use streaming services properly can discover new songs and artists they like quite easily thus new artists can breakthrough but the people who just put the same playlists on and play the same songs they play all the time (imagine paying £10 a month to listen to the same 30 songs for two years :lol: ) and there are people like me who play songs they're interested in on the likes of New Music Friday and Dork's Brand New Bangers and then go and buy them on iTunes all count the same (of course it depends if they're premium or not) Again, it's about the right ro balance represent what's popular and not make the chart so static but lets hope for more Loud Luxury type successes (you wonder if George didn't get that ACR avoiding boost and Calvin didn't release promises if it could have been #1) I must say I'm disappointed that Neutron Dance by Krystal Klear hasn't done anything on streaming :(

Doesn't stop them using HMV online and Banquet though if they want to support record stores though does it? If it's cheaper at all then Amazon isn't THAT much cheaper and you can still use your Pure HMV card as well! (personally if I shop online I try to use a site that has a retail equivalent in general rather than Amazon due to tax avoidance, horrifying working conditions due to the worrying circumstances for retail in general) I rarely buy records from supermarkets but we used to have four record shops and then for a long time we had none but we do have an independent one now but they stopped doing CDs last year which was annoying as I liked being able to get an album on the way home from work for the first time in ages :( So it's either being to get to HMV or HMV online for me!

1. Liverpool 2. Manchester City 3. Arsenal 4. Tottenham Hotspur 5. Chelsea 6. Manchester United 7. Everton 8. Wolverhampton Wanderers 9. Leicester City 10. West Ham 11. Fulham 12. Burnley 13. Newcastle United 14. Crystal Palace 15. Southampton 16. Brighton & Hove Albion 17. Bournemouth 18. Watford 19. Huddersfield Town 20. Cardiff City Points Total For The Champions: 86 Top Scorer: Harry Kane Player Of The Year: Roberto Firmino 0 First Manager To Get Sacked: Jose Mourinho (Manchester United) Championship Promoted: Swansea, Leeds, Preston Relegated: Rotherham, Hull, Millwall League One Promoted Promoted: Barnsley, Sunderland, Doncaster Relegated: Fleetwood, Southend, Coventry, Plymouth League Two: Promoted: Port Vale, Swindon, Lincoln, Mansfield Relegated: Morecambe, Macclesfield

It's not just dance bangers though, it's new artists in general! It's like the chart is becoming an exclusive club that only lets established artists in and newer songs/artists take a long while to build up and get in. It wasn't that long ago that you'd get a song by a new artist go straight in at #1 all the time and now that doesn't happen and the top end of the chart is dominated by very familiar names like it's almost become more about the artist than the song itself. I guess as well as streaming the way releases are done in general has something to do with it as the iTunes chart has become slightly like that as well but not as bad. Also I wonder if it's just me or are there a lot of songs right now that become hits when in my head they've been and gone because they've been around for so long? I guess this is why Radio 1 don't always add a song instantly anymore. I bought the new Zedd single on iTunes so lets see how long it is before that takes off (if it does at all)

10 Brianstorm 10 Teddy Picker 07 D Is For Dangerous 09 Balaclava 10 Fluorescent Adolescent 10 Only Ones Who Know 10 Do Me A Favour 09 This House Is A Circus 08 If You Were There, Beware 08 The Bad Thing 11 Old Yellow Bricks 10 505

This sounds reasonable and shows why it shouldn't be a massive problem, if many people are buying a song/listening to it then it'll chart! Before streaming there were Christmas songs in the chart but 8 out of the top 10 were not old Christmas songs every year, they had the odd few with the current hits in there because most people already had the old songs. It's not like certain factors haven't stopped old songs from being as high as they could be in the past like for example a physical single eventually got deleted which meant it dramatically fell down the chart due to shops running out of stock (I think Bryan Adams got deleted basically the week after his famous long stint at #1 :lol: ) and no one ever called for second hand shop sales to count either. But the thing is beforehand once someone bought a song that was it! So a song could be the most listened to song but be way down the chart due to the fact that most people who wanted it had it! This meant it could just count every sale and they didn't need to do anything else but if it just had a free for all on streaming then we might end up with 20+ non-movers every week, five number ones a year and chart runs like 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-3-3-3 etc. People would not want to listen to that every week as they'd be tired of the same songs when they want to hear what the most popular NEW songs are which is what the official chart is mostly about. At least most weeks of recent times the biggest selling song has been #1 so I'd say that the songs at the top have reflected popularity. I wonder if this might help get some surprise entries in the chart in time and then maybe those songs might get greater exposure because of that factor which certainly might help make people who aren't as addicted to the chart as we all are more interested in it.

Yes and because of that popularity it'll be in the chart anyway as many people will buy it as well as stream it but the official chart needs to mostly represent the most popular songs of now. The Christmas chart isn't the big deal it was but if they don't do something about it then it's just gonna end up being the same songs in the top ten every year if streaming continues the way it is now.

If we are all reading this correctly then this is basically what I've been hoping with regards to new rules. If the influence of streaming on the chart keeps increasing then at Christmas it'll just be the same songs every year due to people just rotating the same playlists and they basically had to do something to stop Mariah Carey from being Christmas #1 this year (sorry I know lots of people really want that to happen) but when it appeared every year before that was due to new people buying it so as it was a sales chart based on the number of unique people buying different songs you didn't need any special rules particularly as big songs were always mainly current songs. I know this and ACR in general have their critics but what could they do instead? The chart has to represent what's popular but they have to make sure it stays interesting and mainly focused on new music.

She just keeps delivering these bangers! :wub: I actually prefer No Angel tbh and think it's one of my favourite pop songs of the year so far but I hope one or both of these get pushed because she's massively underrated imo!

Yeah you can do that on a computer but you can't skip songs on playlists on the mobile app

Well surely that's a good thing, right? I think the ratios make a lot of sense anyway.

Hmm so Girls Like You which was the most viewed video last week would get around 3,933 sales currently or if they were all premium 23,600 sales. So it looks like at least for the minute that the most viewed video might get around 6,000 sales or so? I guess it help boost songs like Freaky Friday then but at least for the moment not make a massive difference. I don't think having YouTube in the chart is a good idea but at least this chart seems to move around a bit. Good to see Praise The Lord rising up on there and hopefully it should help Apeshit get into the top 40 singles (my two favourite songs at the moment :wub: ) Glad we have a different ratio for paid for and ad-supported streams so fingers crossed this'll help keep things fresh and less predictable though like people have said there are plenty of Hot Hits background music zombies on the paid for service as well. Thought I guess guitar based acts will unfortunately have to get used to getting into the top 20 albums and out of the top 200 the next week then :lol:

With streams still increasing I wonder if maybe they're trying to do something to stop things like the Christmas chart being dominated by old Christmas songs, as much as some people here would be delighted with Mariah at Christmas #1 that is a case when those playlists can be argued as being background music. Of course when downloads dominated we had the old Christmas songs but they didn't take over as much they did now. When it was a sales chart we didn't have the problems we had now as once people bought a song that was it! They bought a song it counted as one sale but now one person could do that but someone else might play it ten times a week for 3 months and those plays will all count. I do wonder if maybe they might some other rules like premium users streams count more, playlist streams less or maybe even once a single user streams a song a certain amount of times that's counts and that either counts as a 'sale' and any further plays are not counted or just a general limit on how many times one user streams a song before no further plays are counted. Yes it needs to represent what people listen to but it's also got to keep people interested and keep it current rather than the same songs from six months ago.

But there isn't an album equivalent so how would it consistent with the album chart? Also YouTube has been around for a long time now, it was around when physical singles were still a thing and way before download sales were at their height so if it didn't count then then why now? :huh: If they like a song they can buy it or they can listen to it on a streaming service, I use YouTube and yes sometimes that's been the first time I've heard a song and I then buy it but sometimes I watch a video on YouTube because I want to hear a song or heard a video and want to see it but I may not like the song so why should that count towards the charts exactly? What's the difference between now and 10+ years ago? What next? What comes on the radio when you listen counting towards the charts? You hearing Cliff Richard being played in New Look counting the charts? :lol:

He must have heard that about "YouTube" counting towards the charts before they announced the launch of YouTube Music so he must have misinterpreted that. If YouTube video views were going to count then the OCC would have released a press release well in advance. I'm pretty sure the OCC wouldn't count YouTube video views towards the charts anyway as it's not always someone listening to music (just think how long Gangnam Style would have been #1 if it did :lol: ) There is a reason that being a #1 in the UK has always been a big deal compared to other places and that's because the OCC didn't do stupid things like count airplay or YouTube views which don't necessarily represent whether people actually like a particular song like things like the Billboard charts have done.

Hmm another interesting factor we could take into account is what would happen if Spotify became premium only? (wouldn't be surprised if that happened) would free users all pay for premium? Or would they see more value in maybe downloading a couple of songs instead? (ever notice that when songs get the hot hits boost on Spotify they sometimes get a boost on iTunes as well? As well as people buying less music due to streaming there are some people such as myself who have bought even more due to it) What if features like the ability to listen certain songs offline with no extra cost were taken away? Or if they put the price up or made one paid tier ad free with another more expensive tier ad free? iTunes may or may not be around in a couple of years but if it's not making money for the service or the artist then streaming won't be £10 a month infinite streaming either forever either, it will have to change it's beneficial for the provider, gives the artist money while also trying to keep the consumer. They said the physical format (particularly CDs) would be gone in a few years when downloads first came around and they're still here almost 15 years later and will still not completely go away anytime soon so there's no reason downloads will disappear entirely with or without iTunes, like Gambo said they will be other providers who will take those punters.

I've been searching and that article is just repeating the same rumour and there has been alleged responses (please note I am not saying The S*n and the E*press are reliable but my point these are still rumours and it's still extremely unlikely they'll actually kill the ability to pay for music) https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/scienc...iPhone-iPad-iOS iTunes is NOT shutting down - Apple rubbishes rumours that it will scrap music player APPLE has hit back at rumours claiming the tech giant is planning on scrapping iTunes. Apple has denied rumours that iTunes will be shutting down. Alleged leaked reports had claimed the Cupertino-based firm was planning on phasing out iTunes by March 31 2019. This decision was reportedly made amid the huge popularity of streaming services such as Apple Music and Spotify. However, Apple have now categorically hit out at the claims. Speaking to The Sun, an Apple spokesperson said it was “not true” that the firm was planning to scrap iTunes downloads. This week DJ Mag claimed that sources inside Apple had said iTunes downloads would be stopped next year. They said Apple could make an announcement about iTunes music downloads being stopped in early 2019 or by March 31 next year. DJMag added: “It's important to note these dates relate to an official announcement being made about iTunes ceasing music sales, starting a wind-down process, rather than the point at which the music will actually be taken off-sale. “Apple has also been quick to point out this will not affect people's ability to play downloaded music on any of the company's devices, and all tracks previously bought through iTunes, and users' current iTunes libraries, will still be fully playable.” The claims came after Apple had allegedly sent a letter to senior figures in the music industry last month. The document was labelled ‘the end of iTunes LP’ and outlined plans to remove a specific type of music bundle from the store, Metro reported. The letter allegedly said: “Apple will no longer accept new submissions of iTunes LPS after March 2018. “Existing LPs will be deprecated from the store during the remainder of 2018. Customers who have previously purchased an album containing an iTunes LP will still be able to download the additional content using iTunes Match.” LP stands for ‘long-playing’ and usually refers to a selection of songs with more tracks than a single release but slightly shorter than an album. However, for Apple it refers to a specific type of music bundle on the iTunes store. Apple Music executive Jimmy Iovine has previously denied rumours that iTunes downloads would be “phased out” next year. But the former Beats bigwig told the BBC last month that such a move was inevitable. While he said there is no concrete timescale, Iovine said: "If I'm honest, it's when people stop buying. "It's very simple." Calm down everyone

You do know that they're other places that sell downloads, right? A million singles are still downloaded every week and the music industry won't let them stop selling music so I think people are misreading all of this including the guy in that article.. They won't stop selling music but they're going to instead re-brand it so it all just comes under Apple Music as they no longer have the 'i' brand for everything.

Indeed, listeners are up after moving it and they haven't even shown any vague signs of getting rid of it and why the hell would they? Can anyone really imagine Radio 1 without the chart? (can you imagine Buzzjack without the chart? I certainly wouldn't be here without chart info :P ) Like I said so much of their playlist is based around it and even though it's never been their most listened to show it is basically what makes it Radio 1. The music industry needs some kind of measurement as to what is currently popular and even though they're trying to adapt to a changing market I can't imagine there being a music industry without it. Again I don't personally understand how people can say the streaming chart is more relevant than the actual chart considering all the songs I picked in 'What do you think are the five biggest hits of the year?' thread all did a lot better in sales! If anything I feel a lot of songs become hits on streaming after I felt the song had been and gone a long ago like Miss You by Clean Bandit for example but then again you could say the opposite about Feel It Still. It's almost like we need the chart needs to be some kind of combination of the two to appease everyone with the way things are right now ;) :P

See this is the problem I keep pointing out, if no one makes a profit, musicians can't make money and the increased blandification continues and it ends up killing the measure of what is popular music then who wins? They might have to think of something other than the Netflix style model if doesn't look sustainable for music and I question having all of entertainment controlled by monthly fees to the big tech companies like Apple and Amazon (it's not the same as iTunes as artists still made at least a small amount of money despite the big cut they took from it but it's unlikely people would go back to that model again) I think the Chart Show will be fine for now, the fact it's becoming a three hour show again and they have Scott Mills presenting it who is actually really passionate about the charts (as much as I like Greg he didn't seem to care that much) a possible way to fix things is maybe after an individual has played a song so many times that counts as a 'sale' and no further streams count but I don't know if that's doable but the main problem the chart has is that because the streaming chart doesn't move very quick and only certain demographics use it it's very static and certain genres dominate to the point that there are lots of similar sounding songs. You don't get as many exciting battles like we used to (though Jess Glynne vs. Clean Bandit vs Anne Marie is a good 'un this week) and I doubt a 'Somebody That I Used It To Know' or a 'Let It Go' (Passenger) would happen the ways things are right now. They just need it to become less static due to a natural occurance or by another rule change, I notice physical singles are more of a thing again in vinyl shops so it would be a shame if the chart stopped and they became more popular again. Considering that the chart still has a big part in shaping the Radio 1 Playlist I don't think they'll bin it anytime soon as it's still a key staple to their schedule and they haven't done what they did TOTP in sabotaging the format and putting on a date when no one would listen so unless pure sales completely collapse making compiling it too complicated and too boring for listeners I don't think it'll go anywhere just yet. (they nearly binned it in the early 90s due to low sales so if it didn't go then I doubt they'll stop in the immediate future)

Dare I say that with this and Anne-Marie as outsider it's the first genuine chart battle for a while? :o

Maybe if the issues of artists not being paid enough and the fact no one has made a profit on streaming become a big issue then something like this could be a compromise? https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/may/...g-service-co-op Music subscription service Resonate gives artists both money and power over content with a stream-to-own model Jon Davies: ‘I tend to just not make any money from streaming.’ Jon Davies has set out on a career creating experimental music about the exploitation of people and the environment. Like many independent artists, Davies doesn’t expect to earn much profit from digital downloads or streams of his music, so he relies on a handful of side hustles to make a living. He works five days a week as an usher at a local music venue in Liverpool. He also seeks out freelance writing gigs and performs at Cafe OTO in order to scrape together the £500 needed to pay his monthly rent and bills. Making money off his music online just isn’t in the picture. “From my own experience, I tend to just not make any money from streaming [services],” Davies says. He has been making music under the alias Kepla for around three years. He was searching for an alternative to big streaming platforms like Spotify, which pay artists tiny amounts of royalties per stream, when he came across Resonate. Resonate, based in Berlin and established by founder and CEO Peter Harris in 2015, aims to put the money and power in the hands of the artists. It does this through three main selling points: an alternative to a monthly subscription service, an innovative technology that allows for a more transparent and efficient way of paying artists, and its cooperative model. “It’s a protest against capitalism, it’s a protest against the Silicon Valley model of startups and platforms and, in some sense, it’s a protest against the way music is now being distributed and consumed,” Harris says. Harris is a musician and electronic artist. After trying out his music on various streaming platforms, he realized that none could offer him the experience he wanted – so he created his own. According to the Trichordist, each time a song is streamed by a listener on Spotify, the artist earns an average of $0.00397 in royalties – less than four-tenths of a cent. And yet, Spotify is the second most popular music streaming service, behind Apple Music, with 70 million paid subscribers worldwide. “Many independent record labels have refused to go on record because they’re afraid that if they criticize Spotify, they’re somehow going to get blacklisted,” Harris says. “That’s a really dangerous power dynamic, and it also reveals that there’s a strong desire for something different.” He says comparisons to Jay-Z’s Tidal, which also claims to give more power and profit to the artists, are off the mark. “If they had gotten up onstage at [Tidal’s] big announcement and next to every one of those stars was someone totally unknown, and they’d said: ‘We’re going to build a service for the big names and people you haven’t heard of,’ then maybe Resonate would have never needed to exist,” Harris says. “The reality is, the artists who own it are a very small handful of extremely rich stars. We contrast that against Resonate, where every single artist and member owns it.” Models like Spotify and iTunes aren’t built to sustain a class of artists According to a 2014 report from MIDiA Research, 77% of recorded music revenue goes to the top 1% of artists. “I’ve experienced firsthand how hard it is for artists from these backgrounds to actually make money,” says Natalia Linares, a board member for Resonate. Linares worked in the music industry for 12 years as a publicist and manager for independent artists, experiencing how unfair the business is, especially for artists from minority backgrounds. “It’s very exploitative, and models like Spotify and iTunes aren’t built to sustain a class of artists,” she says. “If [Resonate] can work, and we can build this and show that it is possible to build a platform that artists and listeners actually share and benefit from, that would be a huge contribution. It’s something worth fighting for and being a part of.” Resonate is a cooperative, and because of that artists, board members and listeners all have stake in the company and participate in decision-making. According to its website, 45% of Resonate’s annual profit is distributed to artists, 35% to listeners and 20% to paid staff. Resonate’s alternative to a monthly subscription service is based on a stream-to-own model. Listeners pay a cheap price for streaming a song for the first time, which doubles with each play until it is comparable to the price of a regular iTunes download, $1.29. After nine plays, the song is completely paid for, and the listener can download it from the service. “It takes somewhere between 150 to 200 plays on Spotify to reach the price of an [iTunes] download, and we do that in nine,” Harris says. Resonate also uses blockchain, the online ledger technology behind bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, to create a more transparent way of tracking and distributing payments as well as more user privacy and power over personal data and interactions on the service. Blockchain allows for the use of “smart contracts”, which could be a more efficient and seamless method for paying artists. “You can have a smart contract that says send 30% to the singer, 25% to the guitar player, and split up the rest among the other four members of the band,” Harris says. “The smart contract will receive the money then distribute it out instantly.” Davies says the blockchain aspect is one of the main factors that drew him to Resonate. “As an underground artist, [i think] it’s not good politics to be dismissive of a technology like the blockchain, which looks like it’s going to be – sooner rather than later – a very important way we not only approach things like currency, but also the way we approach contracts and agreements and the documentation of digital goods,” Davies says. He believes Resonate will be more beneficial for artists once it catches on and as more people start to use it for streaming. Harris says the service has almost 5,000 total members, 1,000 of whom are listeners. In March, Resonate received a $1m investment from RChain, a Seattle-based blockchain system cooperative, to further develop its technology. I would expect something similar to this anyway where something other than just an all you can eat subscription to be the next evolution rather than a new format.

You have a point about commercial airplay but the problem is there were plenty of songs on commercial airplay and plenty of manufactured acts from the late 90s/early 2000s that were not successful because people didn't buy them. Another difference now is that rather than this is only being a small part of chart music this has become a normality for even a lot of songwriters who don't have a record deal to the point that people are being encouraged not to be creative! Obviously there are plenty of artists that are but what it's sad that an alternative act can't even get into the top 75 now because people are still streaming songs from 2 years ago! It's bad timing as well now that vinyl singles are on the up! Noel Gallagher and Morrissey would have had top 20 hits recently if it was still a sales chart! Christine & The Queens is doing well on iTunes but I can't imagine her fanbase streaming which just shows unbalanced it has become. I'm sure I'm not alone in finding that most of my Spotify recommendations are usually 95% rubbish! When I'm discovering new music I don't just want something that sounds like a pub version of what I already listen to, we are basically letting the 'lazy' way take over and not the people that love music and won't just listen to Hot Hits UK aren't being represented enough. Also surely the people who just listen to the same 10 songs on a playlist would be better off paying £10 once for them rather than £10 a month :lol: