I agree with the change. As others have said on here, the chart needs to move with the times. I can't remember the last time I bought an actual physical album.

Does make me wonder though if many people care about charts anymore?

I find them irrelevant and meaningless, and apart from the artist and record execs I can't think why anyone else would be bothered.

I thought about that myself, but then realised streaming is different from the radio because people *choose* what to listen to. Unfortunately, it's still not comparable with sales (i.e. the traditional basis for the charts (*)) either.

Streaming is closer to- in the past- counting every time someone *listened* to a particular LP or cassette. If you had tapes you listened to 3 times or 1000 times, both counted equally (unless you wore out the latter and bought another copy, but that didn't happen too often).

Perhaps "listens" is a more accurate measure of what we think we *want* from the charts than "sales" (i.e. a popularity contest?) But we still have to accept it's not a "like for like" comparison.

This is why (IMHO) the move towards streaming- and away from buying songs- is a far bigger change for the charts than the move from physical media to paid downloads were. The latter did make a difference- lower price, speed of access and ability to buy almost any song, whether or not it was currently pressed as a single was obviously going to change habits... but it still reflected what people were buying.

The obvious problem is that if the way people listen to music has changed, the charts *must* reflect that or be rendered pointless, misleading and irrelevant.

So- what do we want from the charts, and how do we get it? Personally, I've no idea...

(*) Yeah, I know the US charts traditionally include airplay. I'm against that for reasons I won't include on this already overlong post...

Not really- at least, not the music we're discussing. CDs and music are much cheaper than they used to be, even before you allow for inflation.

Mid-to-late-nineties CD singles (one song and three filler or remix tracks) used to be £2 or £2.50 on the first week from Virgin- to get them into the charts. Then they went up to £4... which is the equivalent of over £6 in today's money.

Chart CD albums around that time were typically circa £11 or £12. "Full price" back catalogue CDs could be closer to £15. In fact, I remember inflation pushing some *over* the £15 mark around 2000-01. £22 in today's money...

Yeah, CDs were bloody expensive- either you weren't around at the time, or your rose-tinted spectacles are playing tricks on you.

I must be the only person who's never used this Spotify before! Are they really so good? I subscribe to Napster each month for unlimited streaming access to their music archives. If I really like a particular song I will purchase the mp3 of it from Amazon UK. Likewise if I like the majority of songs I hear on an album I'll buy it off Amazon, either as a download or on CD if it's an album I really love or a fave artist of mine. I then put the songs onto my mp3 player so I can listen to them whilst I'm out and about. Regarding streaming albums being counted in the charts though. There have been quite a few albums that I've started to listen to but, about 4 or 5 songs in I get bored and turn it off as I'm not really keen on it, it all sounds very samey to me or whatever. The fact that I selected Play to hear an album but turned it off halfway through, does that count in the whole streaming thing, even though I didn't listen to the whole album? I find it all very confusing. How do they know how much of an album is actually listened to? I could select Napster to play an album but then turn it off literally 10 seconds into the first track, lol!

Interesting no one has mentioned that by adding streaming services to the album charts may spell the end of the album as we know it. The whole idea of albums is wrapped up in the size of the physical medium and how much data can be stored on that medium.

Vinyl records started out storing a max of about 45 mins on two sides. That was eventually extended to nearly 80 mins. But effectively the medium dictated the format and albums were mainly made up of 5 or 6 songs per side. That format persisted in CD which again has the capacity to hold about 80 mins of uncompressed audio data. And albums created since the invention of CDs have persisted with that format. Of course, CDs and DVDs have allowed additional tracks to be included because of their effective additional capacity.

However, streaming services remove these physical limitations and open the possibility of producing and distributing music in new ways. You could have much longer albums for example or songs can be added to an 'album' at any time. Why shouldn't an artist serialise releases: 120 songs (10 albums) in one go or one every few weeks for the next two years?

This is beginning to happen with tv series where the entire series can be released in one go.

This could be very disruptive to music consumption. Have record collections not been replaced by playlists already? Or maybe we are so tuned into the album format that it will hard to shift out of the system?

Although it may increase the number of songs slightly I don't think it will have a mojor effect, except maybe for mass produced chart music which is written by a large team of people.

Where the artist write their own material it would be very difficult for one person or a group to write a whole load of songs, all good enough to be released, in a shortish period of time. Your example of 120 tracks would simply not be possible (and yes I know you were using this as an extreme example)

True, some artist are prolific writers, and you already get double albums released by some of these acts.

I doubt it will spell the end of albums. in the vinyl days if you didn't have enough material for an album you could release a single, or multiple singles or an EP. if you have more music than would fit on a single album you could release a double album, or triple album or box set, or put some stuff out as singles, or as b sides

likewise with cds, if you have more than 80 minutes, make it a double or triple or box set or stick tracks as bonus material on cds singles

even with downloads on iTunes and other sites you can get different versions, so basic album or deluxe edition for example

so there's never really been any restrictions in regards to physical releases within reason. few artists record so much material they want to release umpteen discs at once, and they are mostly indie acts that release music in multiple types of formats. so for example, typical studio album on cd/record/etc, and have separate download only releases online or fanclub singles on cd/vinyl etc

The vast majority of albums are 80 mins with 5/6 songs a side. The number of double and triple albums is minimal. And there have always been singles and Eps again the 7" format was originally limited by capacity, so you have 2 to 5 minute singles for the vast majority of pop history.

The point is that some of the limitations of the technology have help shaped how we have consumed recorded music. The vinyl single and album being great examples. It may be that the album (and single) formats are so well established in pop culture that they will survive the introduction of any new technology. The album in terms of its length didn't change much when CDs took over from vinyl. And so far there isn't much change with the streaming services.

Streaming services like Soundcloud for example might make a difference in time once artists are more fully aware of the possibilities. It's quite early days. Eno once talked about music that would last for days on end, evolving as you the listener interact with it. That's now a possibility.

Really???? I would say most standard albums are between 30 and 50 minutes long. Unless it's a prog rock album when 12 songs could last at least 80 minutes!

i'd love to see the stats for that and know where you got your data


there haven't always been singles and EPs. you might want to google the history or music and have a read on wikipedia


although perhaps the technology was created specifically to cater for the media, so the other way round really

but regardless of that, artists could create music as long and short as they want and there's been little technological issues with doing that as many artists struggle to fill an album with decent material, nevermind want to exceed a single cd or LP, and certainly not multiples


fortunately most people don't have nonsense ideas like eno's and make music for normal people with normal lives to enjoy. in the prog rock days we may have had some bands create single peices of music that were the full length of a cd or want something that goes on for hours, but not many people are interested in listening to that.the flaming lips already created a track that lasts 24 hours. it didn't really set the charts on fire though

Its an age thing but I still wander around HMV looking for CD's-which presumably makes me prehistoric reading some of these posts. The charts though were a huge event back in the day-especially the singles charts where records had a well defined run and it was a bit of a sport watching your favourites rise/stall/fall etc. There doesn't seem the same kind of sport these days-and if there is little effort in creating the charts -either lack of cost(or even free) or physical effort in going to a shop it makes it that bit less relevant imo.
Think I will stick to pick of the pops on Radio 2

Yes, it should have read the vast majority of pop and rock albums are up to 80 mins long. I was assuming that people had read the first post which outlines the capacities.

I would agree that in practice most such albums are actually between 30 and 50 mins long. That is, the physical technology like vinyl and CD when stretched can contain about 80 mins but most albums don't do that. And looking through the best album lists one finds most albums are 30-50 mins. Most albums feature about 5/6 songs a side and that is partly due to the original limitations of the storage media. (Here's one way of estimating duration http://progarchy.com/2013/05/26/are-...heir-own-good/).

As for singles (not really the subject here) these go back to the late 19th century for their original spec http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_(music)) which is a pretty long time.
Bearing in mind that it was only in the Middle to late 19th century that popular music really emerged with introduction of sheet music anyway. There's a degree of congruence there. (http://www.alexandermagazine.com/bus...s/popmusic.htm)

The point hasn't been answered really, and that is why do albums still take the form they do of about 5/6 songs a side when there are no longer any such limitations? It's not really an issue of material, quite often artists self-select 12 songs from a much greater list. The point is that the album has become a form in popular music and popular culture partly as a result of the original limitations of the technology. But that form has persisted for 50 years or so. The deluxe version only re-emphasises that they include bonus tracks above the original album. And of course talking about triple and double albums only emphasises that the basic form is the album.

Rather than a subject to be negative about, the fact that the album form exists is actually something to be positive about. It is so established that streaming may make no impact.

Here's a good article on the critical relationship between technology and popular music which is the bigger picture here.
http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples...1/00068908.pdf

And David Bryne makes a similar point in his book 'How Music Works' briefly mentioned here. http://www.theguardian.com/music/201...usic-interview


(As for classical musos, streaming is great because you can listen to the Ring Cycle without having to turn over the record!).

i'm not sure where you are getting an idea of 5/6 songs a side from. for the last 20 years or so most albums are released predominantly on a one sided cd format, with all songs on the one cd that doesn't need to be flipped like a record. tracks can be any length from a few seconds to just over 80 minutes

5/6 songs a side sounds like something more akin to a vinly album of 45 minutes, but even though that may have been typical or average number of tracks, the format allowed artists like pink floyd for example to put a single track of 20+ minutes on one side. if you only have about 30-45 minutes of material on your album it just makes pretty obvious sense to split it evenly across both sides. technically it makes sense too (google if you want more on this, but thats one of the reasons for 12 inch records existing over 7 inch records as a louder and better quality sound can be had by putting the groove across a larger volume of physical space, whereas the opposite is true in reverse in that squeezing longer running length on a record over the typical 23 mins per side can cause various issues)

much of the reasoning will be more to do with similar reasoning behind why most people work 8 hours 9-5 monday to friday in that it's something pretty reasonable to acheive, whereas similar to people working a double shift perhaps, the quality of work on a double album compared to a single album is often reduced. artists will write and record so many tracks, if they have too many to fit on a single album they may consider a double, but unless the extra material is really good, the may be more inclined to release it as b sides instead, or leave till the next album or release in some other way. with cds being approximatley 80 minutes they allow nearly twice as much length as a typical vinly album at 33 rpm, and album running times have typically increased whereas the quality of the music has arguably decreased

if an artist spends a lot of time writing and recording and creating a lot of music, they and management and record company probably wouldn't want to simply put it all out at onces as a single massive multi disc album or download, but instead split it and sell it in seperate bundles or albums. so whilst they could just take the whole beatles catalogue and stick it on a bluray disc it's unlikely they would. they wouldn't sell the bluray for £20 as that's over a dozen albums (depending on whats counted) that would normally sell for £10 each on cd perhaps, and similarly they aren't going to sell it for anything near the combined value of all the cds, as who is going to pay £200 for a bluray disc? likewise they could bung dozens of films on a HDD and sell it, but realistically they aren't going to sell them at a giveaway price, nor try and sell at the value they consider it to be worth as few people would pay hundreds or thousands for a preloaded HDD

You are still not getting the point really. Most of this above is just detail. What you or most others think of as an album be it 5/6 songs on two sides as with vinyl or 12 songs approx with a CD album has resulted partly from the influence of technology, in particular the capacity of data storage technology. Put simply if that capacity had been greater it might be that artists would have released 20 song albums or if had been less that albums might normally have been 6 songs. With streaming all those limitations are gone. (There is a related discussion about why pop songs are mainly 3-6 mins long but that's not for here).

If you read the article posted above you will see that this is part of a whole history of the impact of technology on pop music. I tend not to rely on Wikipedia. The fundamental technology being the ability to record and mass distribute music and sound at all. Since the first recordings, technological innovations like the invention of the microphone, magnetic recording, multitrack recording, synthesis, sampling, MIDI, DAWs and many others have had a major impact on what pop music actually sounds like. Storage technology is just one of these technologies that have helped shape what pop music is like including the quality of the sound. Streaming opens possibilities which may change music in terms of the form it takes, it may not change much because the idea of artists releasing albums (mainly collections of a dozen songs) is so ingrained, that will not change.

Streaming already changes how many of us consume music ( and film). Which I guess was the whole point of the OP about the impact on album charts. The examples you mention of the back catalogue of artists being available on bluray is going to be irrelevant as streaming services already make well-organised entire back catalogues available in one place. I recently worked through the entire Radiohead back catalogue from beginning to the most recent. Spotify could probably improve the background info and supporting links, of course.

In predictive mode a la Eno, I would say that apps will prove fertile ground for artists. I think Gaga and Radiohead have toyed with the idea of music evolving as you interact with it (Polyfauna) and Eno has a music creation app called SCAPE which includes his own album but you can create your own tracks or scapes to sit alongside his.

well you are the one trying to prove your point, but not doing a good job at it really


but is it? do you have any actual proof of what you are saying?

also, as i pointed out, the technology doesn't really hold any restrictions on a release. if someone has more music than can fit on one physical media they can use multiples, such as with double albums. there's long been facilities to make longer recordings, going way back to the 70s with c90 and c120 tapes for example, or cds in the 80s


you are just going round in circles. you've said all this before and it's been pointed out before that artists could release 20 or more songs if they wanted to, by using double or triple albums or box sets, and sometimes they do. there's no real physical restriction that streaming would realistically remove. the cd has been around for about 30 years now and that holds up to 80 minutes of music. if thats not enough artists can release double, triple or quad cd releases or other multiples, and artists have done that, but many artists struggle to fill a decent single disc so they don't release too much


again you are just repeating the same thing. you think streaming means artists can release longer releases but the simple fact is there is nothing stopping them at the moment from putting out longer releases if they want to, and the facility to do so has been around for decades


the issue of back catalogue isn't irrelevant because of streaming, which is not a method of selling music (as opposed to selling cds or downloads), it's irrelevant because no-one is going to bunde such a large volume of work for sale at once like that. when you stream an artists back catalogue you aren't buying it or getting any right to play it forever. you only hear it on streaming as long as the various licenses etc are in place, from customer signing up for a service to the artist and label licensing to the service. so the music could dissapear as quickly as it arrived, unlike traditional music purchasing


for some artists it might work out, in particular the more experimental ones, but the traditional method of listening to music is the ability to mix and match tracks on a single device, whether record player, tape deck, cd player or ipod. an app based idea like that is typically going to be specific to an artist or label. there are already apps for listening to music in the traditional form, such as itunes or spotify

I don't think I am because most of those comments aren't disproving anything Eg.


Yes, that's the point though, artists have had options to have greater durations etc. in the past and now but they haven't generally used them. They have stuck to a conventional album length based on limitations of earlier technologies. You are actually expressing my point quite well.

Do you get it now?


It's not that the new apps will necessarily displace the more conventional ones.
It just opens up more interactive possibilities for the consumer.

It works best for dance and ambient type music at the moment but I can see harmonic and melodic tools emerging. I can also see such tools being used in club and dance venues in mass participation events.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...8&postcount=31

correct me if I'm wrong, but your point seems to suggesting that artists may not stick to tradititional legnths because streaming allows them to choose any length, when there's never been much of a restriction in the first place imposed by media length as multiple discs can be used if required, and are used in some cases. that's based on your comment above in particular "Interesting no one has mentioned that by adding streaming services to the album charts may spell the end of the album as we know it. The whole idea of albums is wrapped up in the size of the physical medium and how much data can be stored on that medium"


I don't get you at all, as you seem to start saying one thing and then later saying you meant something else, and have made several posts disagreeing with me, to which at the end you now suggest my point is the same as yours

ultimately I don't think streaming is going to make a change to the length of releases by artists as there is little restriction at the moment and hasn't been for decades. someone can release a single 1 minute track on it's own or a 5 hour album

Well almost there. Albums were originally called albums because they were like photo albums, i.e. they actually were generally made up of multiple discs. That was because early albums were of classical music which was written before recorded sound was possible and didn't fit neatly into the available capacity of discs (c. Beginning of 20th Century). To cut a long story short, standards emerged . ' The playing time of a phonograph record depended on the turntable speed and the groove spacing. At the beginning of the 20th century, the early discs played for two minutes, the same as early cylinder records. The 12-inch disc, introduced by Victor in 1903, increased the playing time to three and a half minutes. Because a 10-inch 78 rpm record could hold about three minutes of sound per side and the 10-inch size was the standard size for popular music, almost all popular recordings were limited to around three minutes in length.' Wikipedia.

From that you get the building block of pop music the three minute single. That's probably the best example of how technology has influenced the development of pop music,

You get the 8 song and 12 song album concept because early 78 'albums' were made up of 4 or 6 double sided 78s.

Going back to the original point. The 12", 33 and a third album size simply copied this 12 song (approx) approach of the 78 albums and became a de facto standard. And the vast maj of what has become known as albums are single disc with around 10 to 14 songs. That's how technology has influenced the development of pop music form. Because even though there haven't really been limitations for some time as you suggested artists have generally stuck to this 'standard'.

As you say below artists could have 1 min songs or 5 hour albums but in practice they don't. They actually stick to the 10/12/14 song album form which at one time was a technical limitation but hasn't actually been for some time.



I think I have been consistent about how technology influences the development of pop music. Albums are only one part of that and the meaning of album has changed through time as well. What constitutes an album in a streaming service may well change.

There are other influences besides technology like business, art and culture of course.

"Interesting no one has mentioned that by adding streaming services to the album charts may spell the end of the album as we know it. The whole idea of albums is wrapped up in the size of the physical medium and how much data can be stored on that medium"

I don't think you've been consistent at all, as you start with the comment above and end with "What constitutes an album in a streaming service may well change. "

there's a big difference between a "change" and "the end of the album as we know it"

saying it "may well change" could be true, likewise it may not. but then again it may not. but spelling the end of the album as we know it seems pretty far off to me, and may never happen

Yes, it's people's perception of the value of music that has changed sadly. Music is now something you get for free off YouTube.

You need to quote in full.... it was 'may well spell the end of the album as we know it.' It's true, it may not.....

It has been remarkably consistent over the years...(Pet Sounds (13 songs 35 mins, Sgt Pepper (13 Songs, 45 mins), Ziggy Stardust (11 Songs, 38 mins), Rumours (11 Songs, 39 mins), Graceland (11 songs, 43 mins), The Joshua Tree (11 songs, 50 mins), Nevermind (12 songs, 49 mins), Definitely Maybe (11 Songs, 51 mins), 21 (11 Songs, 48 mins)...

The full point was that technology has had a key influence on the development of pop music. Storage technology is just one example.

But it may be that listeners are comfortable with listening to 10-12 songs lasting about 45 mins...might be something to do with attention levels?

if you look again you will see i did quote you in full, including words both before and after what you state above. however if that's the long and short of it, it's a pretty pointless comment really, saying something may change or it may not


or add the wall, exile, quadrophenia, sign o the times, the beatles white album, or dirty mind. the long and short is albums typically vary in length from around half an hour to about 80 minutes, but some albums are longer. to say something is consistent when there's a variance of time of more than double between a short album and a long one, and the time is half an hour to nearly an hour and a half is pretty meaningless


but again that doesn't really mean that much when you put it into perspective. all sorts of things in life can be considered key influences on the development of pop music, such as politics


but as i keep pointing out, many albums are twice that length or longer. movies can vary from 75 minutes to nearly 4 hours, but these days are usually about 2 hours, or between about an hour and 40 minutes and not much more than 2 hours, with a few heading towards 2 and a half hours or 3 hours. certainly peoples attention spans will often decrease after a certain level of time, but with music there is a limit to how much music an artist can write in a period and how much they can record and how much they want to release, bearing in mind that not every song someone writes is a good one. if someone has a prolific period they may release a double album, or even a double cd with 2 x 80 minutes, but these days few artists are that prolific. the more experimental artists who are prolific perhaps aren't the most commercially viable, so record companies aren't as interested in releasing double albums. some artists prefer to release singles, such as dance acts

It's not pointless, can you be certain about the future of albums or streaming?


Check your record collection and see if the duration of your albums forms a normal distribution around an average of 43 mins. That's the maths of it. You also left off the number of songs.


The usual process involves technical advances, followed by economic drivers which are r & ded back in to the process again. That's how pop music has developed. The first big advance being the introduction of sheet music in the 19th Century. If you have a better explanation fire way.....

I'm open to a theory based on aesthetics for example.


The movies stuff is the movies not music albums. You can't generalise from one medium to another like that. Particularly as movies are most often build around narrative arcs which music albums aren't.

A sensible case could be made for album lengths being mainly around 40 mins because of economics. The 40 min album has proved to be a good template, they have good sales potential. They fit well with record company budgets, the studio time and production costs are easily established. There are contractual obligations (an album a year perhaps) which might set time constraints. Quality controls are easier to maintain. They are easy to market. Those are all good non-technological reasons why albums take the form they do. In that context streaming is just another means of distribution and so albums won't change. Now if you had put it that way....

saying something may or may not change is pointless as most things in life may or may not change. you may as well say england may or may not win the world cup. it's pointless as the statement covers the two possibilities that don't need pointing out


why would i want to do that, and why would i or anyone really care?


that may be your opinion. you are welcome to it


comparing two things is not generalising

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Generalising

movies could potentially be longer. there are often workprints, rough cuts or directors cuts of movies that are considerably longer, but they are cut down for a number of reasons, including keeping the viewer interested

similarly artists can record a much larger number of tracks for an album, perhaps enough for a double album or even double cd at times, such as with the recent madonna album and leaks, and then whittle it down, removing the poorer quality material, similar to slow or boring scenes from movies being removed


but these days the lengths of albums are usually longer and the recording process can be financially more economic than the past

basically you are saying stuff along the lines of X could happen or X could be the reason, but then at the same time X may not happen and X may not the the reason after all. and none of what you've said in the last few posts has anything to do with the thread being about the UK album charts