DS Forums

 
 

Should streaming count towards the top 40?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-02-2014, 23:57
trevvytrev21
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 15,867

Billboard includes streaming, as well. Why would anyone buy a single when you have Spotify, Deezer, Vevo and Soundcloud?
trevvytrev21 is online now   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 06-02-2014, 00:14
CLL Dodge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 80,454
The charts are supposed to reflect sales. Money has to change hands and it has to be a minimum amount of money. Budget albums (currently costing less that £3.75) are not eligible, nor are singles selling for less than 40p.
CLL Dodge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 01:17
Dizagaox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,417
The charts are supposed to reflect sales.
Sooner or later they'll change it to reflect how much £££ artists are making off a single each week, like the Billboard Hot 100.

So yes, streaming from Spotify, Deezer, YouTube, VEVO, etc. should be included. Perhaps from Jan 1 2015 onwards?
Dizagaox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 10:05
shackfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 12,979
Billboard includes streaming, as well. Why would anyone buy a single when you have Spotify, Deezer, Vevo and Soundcloud?
Because how tf are artists going to make any money if tight arses and so called fans don't actually buy their music? It's like being a builder and giving away houses. So no it shouldn't. The chart is basically a list of sales.
shackfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 12:43
thewaywardbus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 843
Anything where you don't have to pay a specific charge for listening too (i.e. purchase price) should not count towards the charts. Yes I know there is a charge for certain streaming sites, but that is a set fee and isn't dependent on how many times you listen to something.

It will further devalue the charts because fanbases of bands like One Direction and Justin Bieber will spend all day on line listening to the album over and over just to get the song in the charts.
thewaywardbus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 13:13
little-monster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 30,200
I think it should. Radio airplay counts in the US towards sales as well which i want to see happen here. Miley Cyrus went back to Number 1 in the states a few months ago due to the popularity of several parody videos for Wrecking Ball.
little-monster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 14:33
shackfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 12,979
I think it should. Radio airplay counts in the US towards sales as well which i want to see happen here. Miley Cyrus went back to Number 1 in the states a few months ago due to the popularity of several parody videos for Wrecking Ball.
But you don't say why? What on earth has the decision by some panel of djs got to do with sales?
shackfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 14:40
trevvytrev21
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 15,867
Sweden includes streaming data in both their singles and album charts.

I'm not saying it should have as much weight as sales - but a percentage would be good. The charts should reflect what is popular, and streaming is only going to get more and more commonplace.

70% sales, 20% streaming, 10% airplay would be quite fair IMO while reflecting actual popularity.

Singles make hardly any money as it is.
trevvytrev21 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 15:58
little-monster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 30,200
But you don't say why? What on earth has the decision by some panel of djs got to do with sales?
Because Radio can make or break an artist. You could have the most amazing video produced, but doesn't mean the song will be a hit. The song needs to be everywhere on the radio to be drilled into people's heads. Plus in the US, specific genre songs are sent to specific genre based radio stations on that song, or the same song can be sent to all genre radio stations.
little-monster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 17:30
MissLaurentien
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 154
I don't think so because it's easy for record companies to influence the charts by paying payola to radio stations to play their songs.
MissLaurentien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 17:31
Oliver_Ustinov
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Inside the bag filter system.
Posts: 899
Yes, I think it should, seeing as how much the norm streaming is these days.
Oliver_Ustinov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 18:12
trevvytrev21
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 15,867
I don't think so because it's easy for record companies to influence the charts by paying payola to radio stations to play their songs.
That hasn't got anything to do with streaming.
trevvytrev21 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 18:21
Electra
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 53,841
Because Radio can make or break an artist. You could have the most amazing video produced, but doesn't mean the song will be a hit. The song needs to be everywhere on the radio to be drilled into people's heads. Plus in the US, specific genre songs are sent to specific genre based radio stations on that song, or the same song can be sent to all genre radio stations.
But the listener has no control over what's given airplay. I think including that is ridiculous.
Electra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 19:01
mrkite77
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: arizona
Posts: 5,220
I don't think so because it's easy for record companies to influence the charts by paying payola to radio stations to play their songs.
That's illegal.
mrkite77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-06-2014, 18:24
afcbfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,288
So streaming is coming to the official Top 40 from 6th July: 100 plays = 1 sale.

Must admit I had my worries about some, shall we say, over-enthusiastic 1D fans leaving their players running overnight, but only 10 streams per-song, per-person, per-day will count towards the chart.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-27924176
afcbfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-06-2014, 19:07
elasticlove
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Norrbotten, Sweden
Posts: 17,817
And yet it happens.
elasticlove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-06-2014, 19:25
MrSuper
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 9,323
For me the Top 40 chart has always been about sales, either physical (cd's) or digital (downloads). It's common sense. To add streaming to it in my mind now makes the charts worthless and devalued.

For example there will be songs that should be out of the Top 10 because their sales have declined over weeks gone by and when that happens they naturally move down the charts, but because of streaming they may never leave the Top 10. Can you imagine Pharrell Williams 'Happy' or a 1Direction song in the Top 10 for ever and ever. No thanks!

This is wrong.
MrSuper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-06-2014, 19:32
starry_rune
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 5,663
Why can't there be a sales pop chart and a streaming pop chart?
starry_rune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-06-2014, 22:29
mrkite77
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: arizona
Posts: 5,220
For me the Top 40 chart has always been about sales, either physical (cd's) or digital (downloads). It's common sense. To add streaming to it in my mind now makes the charts worthless and devalued.
Except that artists make money from streaming. Why *wouldn't* you count that?
mrkite77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-06-2014, 22:30
glyn9799
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,303
I don't think I like this... but at the same time I can understand why they are doing it.

I love singles, and I love the chart. I've been buying them physically for years. I've finally come around to the fact that CD singles are a thing of the past (and for that my wallet it grateful! ) but for me this is kinda the beginning of the end of the singles chart as we know it.

I found it sad when downloads became chart eligible, and eventually downloads became pretty much 99% of all single sales. I think the same will happen here. People will stop buying and eventually just stream.

However, I have to admit (and this may sound slightly hypocrital going on what i've typed above...) but I don't download songs. I hate DLs. If I can't buy a song physically I don't bother. However I use Spotify daily, so in that respect it will be nice to know that I am once again contributing to my favourite songs chart performance And I suppose it might give us a bit more variety - and possibly give some of the older artists a chance in the very youth focused chart we get these days.

I've had a quick look at the chart company rules. I don't think a song should count unless it's been played in full. If the listener doesn't listen from start to finish then it shouldn't count.
glyn9799 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-06-2014, 15:16
StrictlyEastend
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 19,360
I think they should but it could mean an artist could be on top for weeks.
StrictlyEastend is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-06-2014, 18:21
BRITLAND
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,231
For me the Top 40 chart has always been about sales, either physical (cd's) or digital (downloads). It's common sense. To add streaming to it in my mind now makes the charts worthless and devalued.

For example there will be songs that should be out of the Top 10 because their sales have declined over weeks gone by and when that happens they naturally move down the charts, but because of streaming they may never leave the Top 10. Can you imagine Pharrell Williams 'Happy' or a 1Direction song in the Top 10 for ever and ever. No thanks!

This is wrong.
Works in America, and makes it harder to get the no1 spot and more challenging, it also shows you what the most popular song is by adding up sales, streams, views & airplay

Time to move on
BRITLAND is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-06-2014, 19:27
MrSuper
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 9,323
Works in America, and makes it harder to get the no1 spot and more challenging, it also shows you what the most popular song is by adding up sales, streams, views & airplay

Time to move on
How does it make it harder to get the No1 spot and more challenging? I don't know how the singles chart over there in the US works.
MrSuper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-06-2014, 19:29
Eric_Blob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,124
Except that artists make money from streaming. Why *wouldn't* you count that?
Artists also make money from radio airplay, from being played in a club, restaurant, pub or shopping centre, from having their songs included in a video game, film or advert, from having their songs covered on X Factor or covered/sampled by another artist.

Infact, artsits make hardly any money from streaming in comparison to some other areas of the music industry.

How does it make it harder to get the No1 spot and more challenging? I don't know how the singles chart over there in the US works.
It makes it more challenging because it slows down the chart. In the UK a song can get high sales one week and debut at #1. In the US if that happens the song won't get to #1 because the airplay and streaming will be low. It's very difficult to align all three, and it leads to songs dominating the top spot for many weeks, rather than lots of 1-weekers like we have in the UK. Airplay and streaming don't fluctuate a lot from week to week like sales do, so in the US they have 10-15 songs getting #1 each year, whilst in the UK we usually have over 30 songs getting #1 each year, so it's more challenging to get there in the US.

Personally, I think the US charts can be too slow sometimes.
Eric_Blob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-06-2014, 19:50
MrSuper
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 9,323
It makes it more challenging because it slows down the chart. In the UK a song can get high sales one week and debut at #1. In the US if that happens the song won't get to #1 because the airplay and streaming will be low. It's very difficult to align all three, and it leads to songs dominating the top spot for many weeks, rather than lots of 1-weekers like we have in the UK. Airplay and streaming don't fluctuate a lot from week to week like sales do, so in the US they have 10-15 songs getting #1 each year, whilst in the UK we usually have over 30 songs getting #1 each year, so it's more challenging to get there in the US.

Personally, I think the US charts can be too slow sometimes.
Thanks for explaining.

BIB - what would you prefer? Songs at No1 for a very long time or the different No1's each week?
MrSuper is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:58.