DS Forums

 
 

Does anyone else feel 'The Charts' have been ruined by downloads?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-11-2011, 10:40
OnlyWayIsEpics
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,397

I'm only 31 and an avid user of the internet so this isn't a grumpy old man rant about the 'good old days' but when I was in my late teens, early 20s I used to listen to the charts every week (with Mark Goodyear of course) and used to look forward to who would be number one that week, who had gone up and who had gone down etc but I haven't done that since they changed the format to include internet downloads.

Whilst I recognise someone buying a song on iTunes is a valid sale I don't like the way that any song in existence can at any point get to number one now. An advert comes on telly using some song from the 70s and suddenly it's back in the top 10 despite not being re-released.

I miss the old chart where the only songs that counted were the ones out at that time and where you knew each CD had been bought because someone made the effort to go out and buy it and not just download it for 99p of iTunes from their phone.

Anyone else miss the old way the chart worked?
OnlyWayIsEpics is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 02-11-2011, 10:43
TheMagic8ball
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,038
I was about to agree but then I saw the length of your post and was put off.

Also, shouldn't this be in music?
TheMagic8ball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 10:59
The Terminator
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,877
I'm confused by your term "out at that time". Was there a time limit on songs being considered "out"? Surely the only difference now is availability. You arguing for less of that?
The Terminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 11:01
Graathus
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,889
People over the age of 16 actually pay attention to the charts?

Learn something new every day.
Graathus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 11:02
OnlyWayIsEpics
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,397
I'm confused by your term "out at that time". Was there a time limit on songs being considered "out"? Surely the only difference now is availability. You arguing for less of that?
So you'd have 7 or 8 songs that came out that week (i.e you could buy them from the singles section in say HMV) and only those ones would be the ones that could enter the chart that week.

You still had the same amount of choice (as old singles could be got by buying the artists album) but you didn't have this thing where the chart is so fluid that some bloke doing a song on X Factor could make it re-enter the chart.
OnlyWayIsEpics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 11:03
stud u like
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Sunny Side Of The Street
Posts: 40,106
People over the age of 16 actually pay attention to the charts?

Learn something new every day.
I used to when I was younger pay a lot of attention to chart music. I stopped in my mid thirties.

I wouldn't know who was charting now.
stud u like is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 11:05
Croctacus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sarf London
Posts: 13,304
I think the singles chart is pretty meaningless these days cos it takes very little sales to make it, The album chart is what counts!
Croctacus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 11:05
BillyCasper
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: York
Posts: 1,206
I don't have a clue who is in the charts but surely the whole point is to see which songs are popular that week. Not just how many physical copies have been bought.
BillyCasper is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 11:08
The Terminator
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,877
So you'd have 7 or 8 songs that came out that week (i.e you could buy them from the singles section in say HMV) and only those ones would be the ones that could enter the chart that week.
I don't think that was the case, it's just lack of availability and promotion that stopped older singles from re-entering. I'm sure they must have been eligible.
The Terminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 11:12
Pet1986
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: London
Posts: 6,808
im 27 and i pay attention to the charts, whats wrong with that? I actually prefer the new way of doing things I can hear a song i like and buy it on itunes and have it on my ipod in mins.
Pet1986 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 11:15
estrella★
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Surrey
Posts: 3,531
Though I haven't given a toss about the charts for around 20 years, I agree with the OP.

Allowing iTunes downloads to count has been a green light for all those crappy Facebook campaigns to get Nirvana/Rage Against the Machine/Family Guy/Paul Hardcastle/X-Factor reject etc to number one, which makes a mockery of the whole idea of a chart.
estrella★ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 11:18
The Terminator
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,877
Though I haven't given a toss about the charts for around 20 years, I agree with the OP.

Allowing iTunes downloads to count has been a green light for all those crappy Facebook campaigns to get Nirvana/Rage Against the Machine/Family Guy/Paul Hardcastle/X-Factor reject etc to number one, which makes a mockery of the whole idea of a chart.
I think you're projecting your own idea of what you think it should be. The charts are just that; charts. They chart the sales of music and tell us what's selling most. There's nothing more to it than that.
The Terminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 11:19
Si_Crewe
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dumfries
Posts: 38,495
Can't see how legal downloads affect anything.
They reflect which is the most popular music in the UK that week.
Si_Crewe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 11:19
Bundyman
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,111
I don't think that was the case, it's just lack of availability and promotion that stopped older singles from re-entering. I'm sure they must have been eligible.
Yes, back in the 60s/70s/80s & 90s the only singles that charted were ones that the record companies released. Once it fell out of the chart, it was deleted and became "unavaliable". If you wanted it, you'd have to buy the album...which counted towards album sales.

As for whether downloads has ruined the charts, i guess the question is would you prefer a chart made up of songs the public like this week for whatever reason, or a chart made up of what the record companies want to make avaliable this week.

I believe the former is better.
Bundyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 11:23
*marv*
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Lichfield, Staffs
Posts: 8,642
The charts were poor a long time before downloads were included
*marv* is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 11:29
cnbcwatcher
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: At college, in L.A.'s office
Posts: 54,221
im 27 and i pay attention to the charts, whats wrong with that? I actually prefer the new way of doing things I can hear a song i like and buy it on itunes and have it on my ipod in mins.
That's what I like about it. It also saves on clutter and finding a place to store CDs and since I listen to most music on the computer or ipod it suits me better. I do backup my purchases tho, they're on an external hard drive.
cnbcwatcher is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 12:19
leosw4
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2,667
I don't think that was the case, it's just lack of availability and promotion that stopped older singles from re-entering. I'm sure they must have been eligible.
They where. And older tracks had to physically pressed in order to re-enter the charts-this was only ever done if there was sufficient interest. If anything downloads have broken these restraints.

I think ITunes has opened older music up to a lot of younger kids and they buy it as well-personally I dont think its downloads thats the problem as such.Its more to with the crap being churned out by the music business these days.

The only thing that I do wonder about is this-there are a lot of specialist sites for dance, hip hop, rock that type of stuff. Now as far as I am aware, sales from these sites are not contributing to the overall weekly sales, where ITUNES and Amazon seem to dominate-or is this not the case? And ITunes dont stock everything either that's released, so the charts in that sense seem to be a wit weighted in a certain direction.
leosw4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 13:58
Archangel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 776
Slightly off topic, but just to add a point about the quality of music if I may...

UK music has been ruined by the cloned Hip Hop & R&B dustbin that is MTV, and the accountants (like Cowell) who now run the record companies, who are only interested in making a fast buck, and have no inkling of what it means to nurture an artist. The cancelling of "Top Of The Pops" by the BBC has also had a detrimental effect on UK artists and music charts... Music away from those genres are slightly harder to find now, and unfortunately the paying public doesn't seem to be bothered to look (It's faster and easier to buy the "mainstream" on iTunes).

I've worked for the record companies for over 20 years, and everyone knows this but won't publicly state it for fear of their jobs. It's mostly about massive American style PR now, and not much to do with the quality of music or artist. It used to be the other way round when the owners of the companies were people who genuinely loved (and had knowledge of) music.
Archangel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 15:22
miles19740
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 13,768
I'm only 31 and an avid user of the internet so this isn't a grumpy old man rant about the 'good old days' but when I was in my late teens, early 20s I used to listen to the charts every week (with Mark Goodyear of course) and used to look forward to who would be number one that week, who had gone up and who had gone down etc but I haven't done that since they changed the format to include internet downloads.

Whilst I recognise someone buying a song on iTunes is a valid sale I don't like the way that any song in existence can at any point get to number one now. An advert comes on telly using some song from the 70s and suddenly it's back in the top 10 despite not being re-released.

I miss the old chart where the only songs that counted were the ones out at that time and where you knew each CD had been bought because someone made the effort to go out and buy it and not just download it for 99p of iTunes from their phone.

Anyone else miss the old way the chart worked?
The internet has opened up many industries, including music, to 'normal' people if you like, meaning that you and I could possibly have a hit single...so that can only be a good thing. The down side of all media expansion is this...that everything has become fragmented along genre lines, reducing the 'importance' / 'relevance' of the Top 40 run down on a Sunday. People into Dance will listen to the Dance Chart, people into Indie Music will listen to the Indie run down and so on...which I think is a bit sad really. The fact that Top of the Pops is no more has had a big impact to, I believe. If it was on, I would watch it.

I share you nostalgia re: listening to the Top 40 on a Sunday and watching Top of the Pops on a Thursday. I listened during the Bruno Brookes / Mark Goodier days...finger poised on the record button ready to catch the tracks that I liked. It was fun and exciting to see where your favourites landed. I think those days are long gone now.

In terms of digital downloads...I think they are fine aren't they? I still by 'hard' copies of albums by artists I really like...otherwise I just download the tracks I like...saving a fortune in the process.
miles19740 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 15:26
tonypennys
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Leigh
Posts: 4,156
Miss CD singles , my Quo collection isnt the same without them
tonypennys is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2011, 05:24
iseloid
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 9,202
yes and no. look at adele's sales and it shows people still buy cds in massive quantities.and rolling in the deep proves that downloads have a margin that cd production wont ever match (99p vs £2)
iseloid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2011, 13:01
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,036
The charts were poor a long time before downloads were included
yup

shite music ruined the charts

i suppose downloads, as opposed to downloads being counted in the charts, had quite an effect too, as instead of having to go out and spend £4 on a cd single or £12 for the cd, you could download the single or album for nothing. so all those lost sales mean the charts are affected

so possibly the charts are or were populated by people who couldn't figure out how to illegally download that awful song for free, and statitstically that would be more likely to be people with poor education, poor finances and poor taste in music, thus the charts are full of ringtones, puppet songs and reality show nonsense
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-11-2015, 01:18
bearuk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4
As we sprint towards the end of 2015 I looked at the charts today to see Justin Bieber at no1, no 3 and no 5, with another song at no 15 and one entering the charts at no 32.

That would surely never have happened before downloads; the management and marketing of an artist would release a single to whet the appetite of the consumer, release the album, then push out more singles.
bearuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-11-2015, 06:54
Sweet7
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 461
I think the singles chart is pretty meaningless these days cos it takes very little sales to make it, The album chart is what counts!
Single sales are higher than they have ever really been. Whereas with albums, you can get away with selling 20k-30k and get number one.

I think there should be a cap on songs being allowed to chart. So lets say one album track from the album can chart but after that, any more to chart have to be released separately as a specific 'single'.
Sweet7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 27-11-2015, 07:07
StratusSphere
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,174
As a measure, the charts are the most accurate than they've ever been at the minute, as they measure what music is being 'consumed' every week the most.

It's just a bit different because UK charts have never before included radio plays which is to an extent what streaming is.

I maintain that people who exclusively use streaming are people who wouldn'tve or rarely would've bought albums before streaming was a thing. This is why the streaming market appears to be huge - it has increased the market size by tapping into a set of people who ordinarily would not have been regularly buying music in any shape or form, probably because of prohibitive costs. Spotify (etc.)'s price point is affordable enough for it to overtake radio as a way of consuming music, but if it (and youtube) didn't exist, a large amount of its users would just stick to listening to radio because regularly buying singles or albums wouldn't be an option.
StratusSphere is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:03.