Very well said!

StratusSphere referred to the late 90s as being dominated by pop, but in 1998 the Manic Street Preachers and Jamiroquai both had number 1 singles. Oasis and U2 were top 5 regulars, and then new bands such as Coldplay managed big hits. Most of those acts wouldn't get a sniff of the top 40 these days. We had a really good, varied selection of songs in the chart at any one time, can we really say that now?

I doubt I'll ever be convinced that streaming is good for the chart. The money artists make from streams is so pitiful I don't believe that it should be considered in a 'sales' chart. Even the current weighting system is well out of the proportion - based on this streaming points system, Uptown Funk is now one of the 5 biggest songs EVER in the UK, and loads of other recent hits are high up.

Sia and Sean Paul had a massive no.2 recently and they're both over 40 although the song itself is youngish sounding as grant you,

Absolutely agree.

Im rather glad I was young in the seventies and eighties musicwise. The singles chart announcement was a big event and as you say, there was a simply vast range of music and musical styles making the top 40 and number one. The cross generational appeal of the singles charts is gone forever I think

I think this is one area where technological advancement has been in one sense, at the expense of something which was for several decades a pretty special weekly event across the nation.

Which exited the Top 40 the week after. That was a fluke because of that group's sheer stature.


Absolutely. The Official Charts website actually has a tab with pure Sales only, and it is significantly different.


Fantastic post which I couldn't agree with more!


Great post.

The only main reason why this has changed is due to people buying less. Even before download 'era' took hold there was a sheer lack of 'older' music in the charts. I think download took hold and appealed to younger people due to the easy access of a track being 99p (obviously you can imagine in school people are always talking about music - and well, then everyone else will listen and download because there are a hundred other kids telling them too).

I believe iTunes was the primary reason to the decline in the excitement. You could see who was going to be number one all week and pretty much work out the chart positions just from that rolling chart. Therefore on Sunday you'd know where your favourite artist was going to hit the number one spot or not. I would argue though, that there is more excitement now because with streaming, it's much harder to predict.

I do find it slightly unfair that the chart is so slow moving though, and it does kind of take away the fun, in that sense. Although it is difficult to change it. 100 streams = one chart sale, and the reason for this is 100 streams = revenue from a chart sale. Therefore changing this will skew the popularity of a track. I personally think streaming is great because artists are getting paid multiple times rather than that initial first buy. But it does present the problem where the value of music is getting diminished.

Although in terms of the charts, I believe they have lost their impact more recently down to a few factors:

1) Artists are releasing less traditional singles as such (for example, huge artists like Beyonce are dropping their album without clear singles before hand - especially in the traditional sense), therefore those artists who would typically have 4/5 singles in a year guaranteed to go to top 5, are less. Like Beyonce who's song Formation was excluded from streaming and to purchase. Hold Up hasn't been pushed as a single, it's just the most popular - and radios are following suit. Whereas a pre decided single with a new music video, performances, radio edits, a proper push would really get more songs to the top of the charts.

2) Artists are releasing in contrast, many instant grats. For example Nick Jonas releases his album this Friday. He has released three instant grats (not singles - no music videos etc). Because there is such a volume of tracks before, fans can't focus on that ONE single track to push it up the charts.

3) Promotion. Significant decline. Rihanna has done 2 performances for her current album. Zayn has done 1 major TV performance. Justin Bieber has only done a couple. Because these big artists aren't bothering, it's harder for smaller artists to get slots because nobody wants to watch these performances anymore if the Beyonce's or the Rihanna's aren't there.

The thing is, Uptown Funk! was genuinely popular. Every time that song was played when I was at a party/club, you could guarantee loads of people would be dancing or singing along. One of the few songs in recent years that seemed to appeal to people of all ages. All About That Bass was another that seemed popular with people of all ages.

Now, take the current #1 from Drake. One Dance has now spent more weeks at #1 than Uptown Funk! but I'd say One Dance isn't anywhere near as popular as Uptown Funk! has been since its release.

The success of One Dance is truly baffling as it just doesn't seem like the type of song that would spend almost 3 months at #1 (a couple of weeks, yes...but 8?!!!). Because of the way streaming sales have quite evidently spiralled out of control, One Dance will probably overtake Uptown Funk! and become one of the top 3 biggest selling singles of all time in the UK. Really? More popular in the UK than You're The One That I Want, and Bohemian Rhapsody?!!!

Baffling!!!

Then again, I think the OCC still keep track of actual million sellers i.e. singles that sold over 1 million downloads/CDs and keep all streaming data separate. Ironically, the OCC then state that Justin Bieber has scored three million sellers. I don't think any of them have sold 500k in downloads.

Ive heard this a few times. I never personally bought CDs for the artwork, always for the song.

As I said this is just me, is there really a big market for album and single artwork?

Well artwork was very much a vinyl thing probably because the sheer size of an album or indeed a single allowed that element to be added to the mix. Some took it more seriously than others but it made choosing and buying music a more interesting process in my view . There was the same conversation when CD's started to replace vinyl because cover artwork couldn't stand out on a CD in the same way. (Although as I understand it Vinyl is making a comeback of sorts with people buying records in many cases without having the means to play them-presumably here the physicality and perhaps the artwork is partially driving this)

I do get the view about physicality because it doesn't seem like you own anything with a download and you cant show a download off, but equally if your only or main experience is iTunes or Spotify(which I personally have never used) you probably wouldn't appreciate wandering around HMV like I do occasionally.

Not specifically on that point, but generally I do think there needs to be a line drawn in the sand for chart stats between the respective Vinyl/CD and download era's.

To be honest I kind of do this in my head anyway.

Songs like 'Happy' and 'Uptown Funk' ARE massive hits with huge crossover potential and I think their success is deserved, but I don't feel comfortable with them being ranked in the top 10 of an all-time chart. I feel that songs that were charting say 5 years ago have been slightly robbed; I wonder how high 'Someone Like You', 'Blurred Lines' or 'Moves Like Jagger' would be if they had the benefit of streaming data being added to their actual sales? Its not really an even playing field. Likewise we had songs in the early/mid 2000s that felt like genuinely massive hits but probably sold 300k or something - 'You're Beautiful', 'Crazy in Love' or 'Toxic', for example. History in terms of stats will show that these songs were minor hits in comparison to some of Avicci's stuff or this Drake song that lots of people can't even remember now!

Well, looking at this weeks chart- the answer is yes- the singles chart is dead

Seconded.

Thirded.
If only the chart had the acts from BBC4's "UK's Best Part Time Band" in it we might have a chart worth listening to again. The current music chart is deadly dull.

There is still a singles chart? Last time I saw one of those might have been in the early nineties, you know, when they had... charts.

I just posted in a similar thread about this. One Dance is only the ninth single in chart history to spend more than nine weeks at number one. That is quite an achievement but dos anybody really care? It would have been a big deal once. When Bryan Adams was in his 10th week at the top with Everything I Do it was even on the news as he was about to equal and then beat the record for longest run at the top ever.

If One Dance is still number one in six weeks time and about to break the all time record I doubt it will get the attention that Bryan Adams did 25 years ago.

It will get a few lines in the papers perhaps but it doesn't mean much anymore, the rest of the chart is really poor, so not much competition. i don't rate One Dance much either.

One Dance is an abomination to pop. But Drake's saving grace is that his fan base are streaming the hell out of it. It's been streamed 2 or 3 times more than the current number two and three combined. If it wasn't for those streams, he would have had maybe 4 or 5 weeks at number one. The Calvin Harris and Rihanna song would have slid in and had about 1 or 2 weeks at the top. Then Justin Timberlake's record would have done a nice run at number one afterwards. One Dance really shows the downside of streaming.

Some of those acts appealed to significant numbers of younger and older people. Sade was popular with teenagers. Myself and a friend went to see the band when we were about seventeen. I'd have jumped at an opportunity to see Luther Vandross. Kids at our school were buying Lionel Ritchie and Phil Collins. If they were the exclusive preserve of say, the over 30's they wouldn't have had features in the likes of Smash Hits.

I suppose technology has changed not only the way in which many of us consume entertainment but also how we endorse it.

Previously if you really liked music, you put your money where your mouth is and bought it. With streaming you are buying a service, surely, a bit like having home broadband? You might only love e.g. Facebook and have an internet connection to access that site but what you've bought is a means of access.

Going back a little before streaming, If you profess to love a film but didn't bother catching it in the cinema, or buy a DVD so you could view it when you wished, instead only watching it when it is on TV I would say you're not really invested in it.

It seems that with repetitive streaming of a track, it's a bit like buying a 45 in the record shop, taking it home and playing it twenty times and that representing twenty sales. Absurd really.

Singles are aimed at casual music fans.

People who are really into music seek out artists themselves through research and listen to albums as albums represent the true quality of an artist.

You just need to look at the calibre of artists who are high up in the album charts in comparison to the singles charts to see that.

However, album sales fluctuate from one week to the next. A fairly big artist can sell 40k to be #1 one week, then once all those who really wanted the album have got it, you see said album plummeting down the chart as there aren't many casual music fans who buy albums for the sake of it.

Then in other weeks with lack of much competition you get albums climbing to #1 or entering at #1 with really low sales.

As digital and physical album sales continues to decline, there's the possibility of streaming sales for albums slowly becoming the norm for checking out new albums rather than buying them on iTunes or a CD from your local supermarket.

Baring in mind that Justin Bieber's album Purpose was the streaming #1 album for 22 weeks in a row, if streaming albums on Spotify becomes as big as streaming singles are right now, then those artists currently doing well will end up worse off as we'll be seeing the most popular acts in the singles chart also dominating the album chart and singles chart.

So an album chart where Justin Bieber's next album could be #1 for 26 weeks whilst lead single spends 13 weeks at #1, then replaces himself at #1 with his second single from the next album could become the future of the charts.

If you think there's a lack of variety in the charts now, wait until Spotify dominates the album charts too. New entries will be as rare as 29th February.

This used to be my highlight of the week listening to this every Sunday for about 25 years. I gave up on it about 2 years ago now it's just an embarrassing mess

Seconded. I've followed the charts since 1981 avidly. It has now got to the point where I don't really bother what teenagers stream on a daily basis. It has taken the fun out of 'chart-watching'.

Therefore I retire ! Cheerio.

I cant believe you lasted this long. How on earth have you stayed interested for at least the last ten years ? Its been dead for so long.

Nah they died in 2012 for me Gotye was the last interesting number one and then on there was less and less rock and indie or electronic music until we reached the last 2 years which have been the worst, if you weren't Edm hip hop rnb pop hybrid or a singer songwriter you had no chance of going top 40.