Does anyone else think it is to easy to have a hit single these days?? I grew up with music in the 90s and back then we were used to seeing groups and acts mounting 5 to 6 weeks long campaigns to score a top 20 single. A lot of work and promotion went in to singles . These days Singles are less important and acts can have several singles in the charts all at once. It does seem easier to have a hit single these days with less work and cost.
what do you guys think?

Charts are meaningless since streaming came into play.

It's no longer based on sales.

I know this but do you think you need less talent now to score a hit single and less of a profile ?

The artists that are having these multiple chart hits or instant chart success are either established acts or new ones that are signed to major labels. If you are one of this club the answer is yes. However for everybody else the answer is no.

The major labels pay commercial radio to be playlist their acts and when it comes to streaming, I strongly suspect they have net bots or teams of people just streaming their key acts all day to ensure chart success. It is the worst decision ever to include streaming figures in the sales chart and is clearly open to manipulation.

Once the hype is created it usually has the knock on effect of joe public following the trend and the sales/streaming will remain. This is why we are seeing songs remaining in the charts for stupidly long amounts of time now.

It’s virtually impossible for a new Indie act to score a chart hit as they simply don't have the resources to compete on this level.

It is actually harder as the chart is slower and there is only 3-4 enties a week,unless you are a megastar or getting blanket radio play or a masisve club hit you are screwed

There was a music programme on BBC4 last night which dealt with the history of the charts..



This is a copy of an entry from Wiki. Which is available for anyone bothered to check.

The lowest weekly sale for a number one single is 17,694 copies held by Orson's "No Tomorrow" in 2006.[10]

The addition of downloads to the UK charts meant that singles could reach number one with no physical copy being released. The first single to achieve this was Gnarls Barkley's "Crazy" in early 2006. Since 2014, audio streaming has been included in the calculation of chart position, so it is now possible for a single to reach number one without selling any copies (if it were only available on streaming services). In the week ending 24 September 2015, "What Do You Mean?" by Justin Bieber became the first number one with over half of its chart sales made up of streaming points, with sales of 30,000 and 36,000 points from 3.6 million streams.

Interesting thread!

I feel like the singles chart has become a songs chart, this has been the case since you could cherrypick songs from albums that were chart eligible, so not a very recent thing. In the 90's you couldn't do this, you had the singles the record labels wanted out there and then the album. Consequently, there now are a lot more songs available by every artist to chart, so on occasions a successful artist will have multiple songs in the top 40, but this only means that somebody else didn't make it, more likely a less known artist who didn't have as big of a campaign or profile.

Therefore, I don't think it's easier. There are more opportunities to chart as their are more songs available, but that means more competition too which makes it harder for other artists. I would imagine the artists who are negatively affected by this in the charts are massively outnumbering those that are.

Regarding the 6 week campaigns, a lot of artists still do this, Little Mix got Black Magic to number 1 on this sort of campaign, I'm sure there are a lot of other examples too. Radio typically is still taking about this length of time from a song premiering to peaking on the airplay charts, so it still requires a long campaign. That said, there seems to be a renewed push for On Air On Sale again, I'm not sure if this makes much difference to the 6 week campaign though, just that the campaign is more spread out and slower, rather than an obvious 6weeks blast.

I wonder is shops stock of EP's and singles also played a part in artist typically only having one song in the top40 at a time.

I think the charts these days are a joke and really cannot be taken seriously

The charts are just a fanbase now. Streaming has killed it totally, and it's the album chart where all the focus is on now.

It's stupid teenage girls who are too ugly and fat to get boyfriends, the club-heads and the record execs controlling it.

As much as I hate what the charts have become is the comment in bold really necessary?

Is it that easy?

If anything, I'd say streaming has made it even more difficult to get a hit single.

It all depends on the artist. If it's a new band /group on the verge of a breakthrough single, in the 90s they might've had a low top 40 single. Then subsequent singles would've entered higher as the group gained momentum and a bigger fan base. Take That, Oasis, Travis are all great examples of this.

Now, a band/group that have a similar following to Oasis in early 1994 would likely struggle to make the top 40.

At the moment, streaming is benefitted well established artists like Justin Bieber, Adele and One Direction. Other songs grow in popularity, just like how singles climbed the charts up until the mid 90s when record companies started controlling the charts.

The problem with streaming is that's it's so slow. So so slow!!! You end up with songs that become popular staying popular for a much longer amount of time. In the 90s, you bought a single and that was it. Eventually stock ran out or the record company deleted the single so it couldn't stay in the top 40 for months because people couldn't buy it.

Personally, I blame greedy record company executives exploiting the public. I pinpoint 1998 as the year everything changed. Up to that point a CD single could contain as many tracks as long as the running time was under 40 minutes and these CD singles could be bought from Woolworths at £1.99 or maybe £2.49. Then they changed the rules and regulations...and the bloody price!!! So from 1998 onwards a CD single couldn't run for more than 15 or 20 minutes (can't remember which one) and the price went up to £3.99

Step forward illegal downloading from 1999 onwards. Granted, paid for downloads became more popular by 2010 and whilst download sales were at an all time high in 2011, it wasn't long before record companies starting exploiting the charts for their own personal gain.

Songs being held back for weeks but you could pre-order the song on iTunes? Pre-ordering a download?!!!! A download that will never run out of stock once it's on iTunes unless removed by the record company. Usually so that people can just buy the exact same song from the album instead.

Thanks to streaming, Thinking Out Loud now holds a UK chart record for staying inside the top 40 for 52 weeks. As much as I like that song, it should've been gone long before it did but because of streaming it became one of those ultimate long stayers.

Then there's Justin Bieber with his record breaking all top 3 from a week ago. I haven't a clue where the charts will go from here onwards. Either the streaming chart will start to speed up as more songs become bonafide hits each month, or we will embark on a new era where the top 5 stays the same for 10 weeks. Then the following week just one new song goes top 5 and the previous weeks top 4 all drop a place etc...

Basically, we need our UK radio stations to jump onto new singles as they take off including big hits in other countries and give them exposure in the UK. Music channels also need to start playing lyric videos too. They were happy to play the lyric video to Skyfall by Adele in 2012, so why not other lyric videos where an official video hasn't been released?

To me, it all depends on how you are first taken in by everyone else in the picture.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Record companies have paid people to purchase singles for years and years and continue to do so. I do think Music is produced more cheaply these days and Acts have to work less to score a top 20 hit single. Also the music buying public also have very fickle taste these days as well and can love a song one minute and hate it the next or vice versa. I honestly think any one of us on or anybody could stand a chance of a hit single if you put a few catchy words together with a catchy tune and upload it on to you tube etc etc. Back in the 90's there was none of the socal outlets we have now to promote the music. Hence I think making it easier to score a hit single.

It's only easy for the established acts and/or those who get radio airplay.

Definitely harder, and I'm pleased a lot of people are seeing that.

With thousands, if not millions of 'singles' available to purchase its probably harder than ever before to get a top 40 hit as there is no longer any restriction on how long the product is available for. Add in the likes of Justin Bieber and Ed Sheeran taking up multiple spaces in the chart at once and for smaller acts, getting a look in is almost impossible. In the past, small acts could often sneak a low top 40 placing in a quiet week - now its more likely to be occupied by songs from 9 months ago climbing back up, or unforseen circumstances like if an old track has returned due to appearing on an advert or someone dying (as we've obviously seen this week).

Also you used to see fanbase acts chart consistently well as roughly the same amount of fans bought every single they released to get hold of unreleased B sides or just to add another record to a collection. Remember when Morrissey had 4 top 10 hits from one album? He'd probably be lucky to dent the top 100 with the first single now!

Somebody said earlier about an early Oasis size act well there is s perfect example Catfish & The Bottlenen their album has been out 18 months think it's platinum if not far off it , they have had 6 singles and not one top 40 and sell out arenas and large venues worldwide

Ten years ago every one of their singles would have been top 40 and 'pacifier' a top 5 hit.

That would be me.

It is true though. If you look at the following run of singles for each act, you can actually see how each group progressed to their peak.

Take That

23/11/1991 Take That Promises 38 {38}-40->2
08/02/1992 Take That Once You've Tasted Love 47 51-{47}-72->3
06/06/1992 Take That It Only Takes A Minute 7 16-9-8-{7}-9-18-39-68->8
15/08/1992 Take That I Found Heaven 15 16-17-{15}-19-42-69->6
10/10/1992 Take That A Million Love Songs EP 7 23-9-9-{7}-8-15-22-46-69->9
12/12/1992 Take That Could It Be Magic 3 9-5-4-4-{3}-3-4-10-17-27-45-54->12
20/02/1993 Take That Why Can't I Wake Up With You 2 {2}-2-8-13-29-40-53-57-57-59->10
17/07/1993 Take That Pray 1 {1}-1-1-1-3-9-15-22-36-55-69->11

Oasis

23/04/1994 Oasis Supersonic 31 {31}-48-64-44R(59)-48-59-74R(25)-63-54-65-71R(6)-47R(37)-64-63R(6)->14
02/07/1994 Oasis Shakermaker 11 {11}-18-39-55-69-52R(47)-55-67-61R(26)-63-74R(7)-48R(37)-65-61R(6)-74->15
20/08/1994 Oasis Live Forever 10 {10}-10-17-38-45-50R(40)-52-62-64R(26)-71R(2)-75-75R(5)-74-42R(36)-62-75R(5)-59-72->18
22/10/1994 Oasis Cigarettes And Alcohol 7 {7}-12-34-44-58-75-69R(5)-53R(25)-56-64-65R(25)-58-66-74-71-69-70-70R(3)-62-68-72-75R(3)-74-72R(3)-75-75-72R(13)-38R(12)-55-69-75-74-71R(2)-56-67->35
31/12/1994 Oasis Whatever 3 {3}-6-8-9-14-19-28-43-65-70-48R(16)-49-61-75R(22)-66R(3)-55-57-61R(2)-63-69-69R(2)-64-55-58-61-66-70-56-58-64-63-62-67-65-70-69R(11)-62-70-63-66R(2)-34R(8)-36-41-48-59-61-56-45-53-65->50
06/05/1995 Oasis Some Might Say 1 {1}-2-5-17-26-34-57-47-45-54-62-66-74-73-73R(3)-65R(19)-59-70-75R(8)-70R(23)-40R(12)-56-65-73-73R(3)-58-68->27

Travis

12/04/1997 Travis U16 Girls 40 {40}-62->2
28/06/1997 Travis All I Want To Do Is Rock 39 {39}-73->2
23/08/1997 Travis Tied To The 90s 30 {30}-62->2
25/10/1997 Travis Happy 38 {38}-67->2
11/04/1998 Travis More Than Us EP 16 {16}-40-54->3
20/03/1999 Travis Writing To Reach You 14 {14}-21-32-49-66->5
29/05/1999 Travis Driftwood 13 {13}-31-39-44-66->5
14/08/1999 Travis Why Does It Always Rain On Me? 10 {10}-11-18-25-36-38-41-61->8
20/11/1999 Travis Turn 8 {8}-16-24-37-52-59-50-57-48-51-58->11
17/06/2000 Travis Coming Around 5 {5}-23-34-41-59-67-71-67R(2)-55-75R(2)->10
09/06/2001 Travis Sing 3 {3}-10-17-23-33-41-50-56-57-50-51-65-60-75->14

Three great examples of acts who, in 2016, would never see those first few top 40 singles get anywhere near the top 75 alone with streaming added.

Likewise, if What Do You Mean? by Justin Bieber was a brand new song by an unknown singer, it might've gone top 75 initially before climbed up the charts with increased airplay.

I fully expect Bruno Mars, Katy Perry and maybe Emeli Sande to dominate Spotify in a similar way when they release their new single/album unless they do an Adele/Taylor Swift and refuse to allow their albums to go onto streaming services to encourage more paid for sales instead.

Streaming is included in the album charts, Einstein

Quite the opposite.
1. Streaming has slowed the chart right down, cutting the amount of hits (ie, places on the chart) available to be had by anyone
2. The inclusion of album tracks also cuts the number of places on the chart for others to have hits
3. Radio 1 won't now play anyone older than 30 ish and without their support getting a hit is all but impossible
4. Streaming favours younger music fans and acts that get their videos playlisted on music channels (ie, acts catering for the teen market), freezing everyone else out
5. pop has all but disappeared from TV: gone are the days when a slot on TOTP, the Word, the Tube or your video being played on the Chart Show could get you a hit or get you played by radio
6. rock, alternative acts, independent labels and MOR acts no longer stand a chance of charting in the sea of teen pop, RnB and dance music that now dominates the singles chart

So no... it's harder than ever unless you're a major label, mostly American, teen orientated artist

As someone who was teenager in the 60's I must say that the 'charts' these days leave me completely cold. It seems to be all rap and posturing with very little in the way of a memorable melody!

We hardly ever see a proper group any more - two guitars, bass, keyboards, drums - and we even more rarely hear anything that has a tune that sticks in the mind.

The days of the Merseybeat sound, which took on a lot of the youth culture after the rock'n'roll era of the mid to late fifties, are long gone of course, but at least there were some bloody good songs for which you were glad to part with your 6/8d for the single. Hey, the B-side might even be worth a listen to as well. And when they finally bring out an album, blimey, there'll be a raft of brand new songs that you've never heard before - and amazing value too at only 32/6d - and none of them would be lifted as a single either, not back then!

Many of us use music to define our era and to bring back memories of a more carefree time, but what today's youngsters will use I have absolutely no idea!

If you have a big label behind you that wants you to have a hit then yes it is pretty easy.

Are Foo Fighters, Coldplay and The Prodigy under the age of 30? I ask because they have all been playlisted by Radio 1 recently. Considering over half of Radio 1's playlist never troubles the chart I can't see how Radio 1 is to blame? Also Radio 2 has an higher audience and very little of their playlist troubles the charts.

I don't think being over 30 prevents acts from having hits - see Maroon 5, Coldplay, David Guetta and Sia. But the complete reluctance of the record companies and radio stations in promoting new talent than a few favoured acts is much more prominent now. Guess there's very little money spent by the public on music so only a few artists can earn money from record sales.