DS Forums

 
 

Has streaming killed the singles chart?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 18-06-2016, 19:18
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
It has been a long time since the singles charts have reflected the music scene. Well before streaming was included.
like when?
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 18-06-2016, 19:49
Peter the Great
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,073
What do you mean like when? Streaming didn't start being included until 2014. Is everyone suggesting the charts were in brilliant shape up to then? The sales chart still exists and it isn't much better.
Peter the Great is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2016, 20:46
Chris1964
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,020
100 streams is equal to one physical or download single sale. Not sure which bright spark came up with that ratio but there you go!

The thing I don't get is if you use the free version of Spotify and stream popular songs does this count? Surely you're not paying for the streaming at all so how can that equal a sale? If you're paying a subscription to Spotify or other streaming apps then you're paying to get music into the top 40/top 100.
It does just seem, on face value, like someone has written down a few figures on the back of a cigarette packet with that 100 figure.
I can see the argument which says a chart is a chart whether is paid for or free or whatever. However to me its wholly unsatisfactory, I cant see any statistical worth in songs being buoyed up and floating on the chart simply because fans now have a cheap( possibly free) and effective way of sustaining them. It goes against the grain for me and the whole stats side of chart performance seems to be a muddle and a mess.
Chris1964 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2016, 21:08
cnbcwatcher
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: At college, in L.A.'s office
Posts: 54,214
I think it has. It's too easy to keep a song in the charts for weeks, sometimes months. It mostly seems to reflect now what people are streaming rather than what's really popular. Since streaming became included I haven't really paid much attention to the singles chart.
cnbcwatcher is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2016, 21:15
Breaking_News
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 345
i started a similar thread on this a couple of weeks ago. stop stealing my thunder ha

And no, i dont think watching a video on You Tube should count towards the singles chart - how stupid is that. I watch music videos on MTV but they dont count that.
Breaking_News is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2016, 23:25
Hitstastic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,741
I remember the good old days when it took a single a few weeks of climbing to get to Number One - this was killed before streaming was added - and a song like Pump Up The Volume took weeks to get to the top spot.

Now it is all about marketing and first week sales/streams.

There should be less weighting to streams than actual sales.
Actually, this has changed rapidly since Spotify took control of the charts.

It was the polar opposite in 2014 when iTunes had songs available to pre-order for 3 months before release. Iirc, there was a new #1 every week for about six months all thanks to the whole marketing strategy you're referring to.

Only one single so far this year has entered at #1 whilst the rest have climbed to the top.
Hitstastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2016, 23:43
Scraggy Taters
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,104

It's already June and we've had only SIX songs at number 1,
In hindsight, by this time in 1992 (when the chart ran 'normally') there also had only been six (all 3 wks plus at the top) #1s.

Queen, Wet Wet Wet, Shakespears Sister, Right Said Fred, KWS & Erasure
.
The only UK #1s by mid-June in that year.

But yes, IMO streaming shouldn't be included and should be a sub-chart on its own. I find the official Sales chart is more like the 'chart-of-old' and resembles the Vodaphone Big Top 40, which I'm starting to follow instead.
Scraggy Taters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2016, 09:06
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
What do you mean like when? Streaming didn't start being included until 2014. Is everyone suggesting the charts were in brilliant shape up to then? The sales chart still exists and it isn't much better.
maybe they were more accurate though, the content is only as good as the material being produced.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2016, 09:45
JEFF62
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,538
Go back 25 years and Bryan Adams spending 16 weeks at number one even made the news. When Everything I Do was in its tenth week at the top there was huge hysteria about it. People were talking about it and at the time was about to equal a record unbroken for for over 30 years. No single had topped the chart for 11 weeks since the 50's.

Since then the longest running number ones have been from Whitney, Wet Wet Wet and Rhianna. WWW was a big deal in 1994 as it came near to breaking Bryan Adams run but stalled at 15 weeks.

But if Drake continues I can't see there being the huge media attention that Bryan Adams got in 1991. Even if it spent 16 weeks at the top and was going to break the all time record would anyone care? It would not be such a big deal as it was 25 years ago.

In some ways the charts have settled down a bit. Remember 1999 and 2000. There was a new number one nearly every week. There were 43 number ones in 2000. So this is almost more like the old days.

One dance is only the 8th single in chart history to spend more than 9 weeks at number one. So it should be a big deal. But for some reason it isn't. Maybe that is because we know that streaming is accounting for its success. Personally I think the song is dire. It doesn't deserve to be a long running number one and I hope it doesn't spend any longer at the top. If it did go on to break the all time record it would be a complete farce.
JEFF62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2016, 13:02
Peter the Great
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,073
maybe they were more accurate though, the content is only as good as the material being produced.
What do you mean more accurate? I would have thought the charts have never been more accurate?
Peter the Great is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2016, 13:07
Peter the Great
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,073
In hindsight, by this time in 1992 (when the chart ran 'normally') there also had only been six (all 3 wks plus at the top) #1s.

Queen, Wet Wet Wet, Shakespears Sister, Right Said Fred, KWS & Erasure
.
The only UK #1s by mid-June in that year.

But yes, IMO streaming shouldn't be included and should be a sub-chart on its own. I find the official Sales chart is more like the 'chart-of-old' and resembles the Vodaphone Big Top 40, which I'm starting to follow instead.
The Vodafone Top 40? Doesn't this include airplay from crappy commercial stations that have tiny playlists? And you're complaining about streaming being included?
Peter the Great is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2016, 15:18
EStaffs90
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Underneath Tom Hiddleston
Posts: 6,701
And no, i dont think watching a video on You Tube should count towards the singles chart - how stupid is that. I watch music videos on MTV but they dont count that.
America's chart started to include YouTube views in 2013. And what happened? The f***ing awful Harlem Shake song topped their chart for five weeks, as a result of all those videos of people doing it.
EStaffs90 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2016, 15:29
Lyricalis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Lost
Posts: 43,318
I guess they could release a chart purely based on the sale of singles in physical shops (do they even sell singles any longer?) just to keep oldies happy, but that would just make it unrepresentative of how people are listening and paying for music nowadays.
Lyricalis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2016, 15:50
VoodooChic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I am MALE
Posts: 8,261
Are we to assume the charts pre-streaming are incorrect now? There was no way of monitoring what teenage girls were playing to death - Maybe New kids on the Block - Cover Girl should have gone to #1 for 28 weeks instead of the top 10 position it received
VoodooChic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2016, 16:17
Peter the Great
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,073
I guess they could release a chart purely based on the sale of singles in physical shops (do they even sell singles any longer?) just to keep oldies happy, but that would just make it unrepresentative of how people are listening and paying for music nowadays.
It still exists on the Official charts company website. It always has alot of new entries and reissues. The Neales are the current no.1.
Peter the Great is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2016, 16:59
boysforpele
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,584
i am not convinced the balance of streaming to chat positions for albums and singles is correct. But yes it has damaged sales.
boysforpele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2016, 17:20
Chris1964
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,020
Are we to assume the charts pre-streaming are incorrect now? There was no way of monitoring what teenage girls were playing to death - Maybe New kids on the Block - Cover Girl should have gone to #1 for 28 weeks instead of the top 10 position it received
Its looking at collation from a totally different angle. To me what is going on now is just ridiculously skewed and flawed. It should as far as possible one person one vote so to speak. The fact that a person had to spend a comparatively large amount of money to buy a cd single or vinyl largely kept that in proportion. Those streaming away now for a nominal charge( or even for free) wouldn't have been buying vinyl/cd's over and over. Thus its a different world.

Obviously technology moves and I must admit I kind of drifted behind the times about 15 years ago. I must say though Im glad this kind of technology wasn't around in the seventies and eighties-would have been hugely boring to watch a stagnant chart.
Chris1964 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2016, 17:52
Kirsty_Jones90
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 502
I guess they could release a chart purely based on the sale of singles in physical shops (do they even sell singles any longer?) just to keep oldies happy, but that would just make it unrepresentative of how people are listening and paying for music nowadays.
I would not know any current retailers stocking physical singles.
The only cd single I have seen the past months is Jess Glynne but purely because it was a charity single
Kirsty_Jones90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2016, 18:44
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
What do you mean more accurate? I would have thought the charts have never been more accurate?
this was covered on page 1 .
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2016, 19:14
VoodooChic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I am MALE
Posts: 8,261
Its looking at collation from a totally different angle. To me what is going on now is just ridiculously skewed and flawed. It should as far as possible one person one vote so to speak. The fact that a person had to spend a comparatively large amount of money to buy a cd single or vinyl largely kept that in proportion. Those streaming away now for a nominal charge( or even for free) wouldn't have been buying vinyl/cd's over and over. Thus its a different world.

Obviously technology moves and I must admit I kind of drifted behind the times about 15 years ago. I must say though Im glad this kind of technology wasn't around in the seventies and eighties-would have been hugely boring to watch a stagnant chart.
I fully agree with you - there might even be computers nationwide paid to repeat a certain song.......which reminds me of the record companies bulk buying in the past
VoodooChic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2016, 18:35
Hitstastic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,741
i am not convinced the balance of streaming to chat positions for albums and singles is correct. But yes it has damaged sales.
Personally, I think pre-orders on iTunes killed sales.

In 2014 there were many singles released all over the world but in the UK you could only pre-order the song. This was to allow the song to build up enough sales so that when it was released, it had an artificial sales figure that made it #1 thanks to 3 months of sales rather than 7 days.

Hence the endless stream of new #1 singles we had in 2014.

I think it got to a point where people couldn't download a new single on iTunes but they could stream the song on Spotify that was the nail in the coffin.

So if iTunes are wondering why people don't download music like they did between 2009-2013, iTunes can blame themselves and the stupid pre-order policy.

Now we've got a song spending 11 weeks at #1 - something that was impossible to achieve two years ago because of the way the UK charts were being controlled by record companies.

It's just that the entire chart these days is slow, rather than just the top 3-5 songs.
Hitstastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2016, 23:25
Scraggy Taters
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,104
The Vodafone Top 40? Doesn't this include airplay from crappy commercial stations that have tiny playlists? And you're complaining about streaming being included?
Yup. Yes it does... and yes I am. Your point being ?
Scraggy Taters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-06-2016, 08:43
Peter the Great
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,073
Yup. Yes it does... and yes I am. Your point being ?
My point being you are complaining about streaming being included but at least streaming is what the users of the streaming sites are listening to. Not what radio executives at commercial radio are choosing to playlist. The chart also only has 1 New Entry this week so it is hardly fast moving and exiting either.
Peter the Great is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-06-2016, 23:06
Scraggy Taters
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,104
My point being you are complaining about streaming being included but at least streaming is what the users of the streaming sites are listening to. Not what radio executives at commercial radio are choosing to playlist. The chart also only has 1 New Entry this week so it is hardly fast moving and exiting either.
Fair point and I wholly agree. Streaming has solely sucked the life out of the charts as we knew them... hence my following of the O.C.C. Sales chart which closely resembles the Vodaphone Top 40... regardless of the added airplay aspect which has never interested me as, apart from Sunday, I never bother having the radio on. But that's just me.
Scraggy Taters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-11-2016, 23:38
digitalspyfan1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 650
Just wanted to revisit this thread.

Last week (Friday) there were about 15 or so new releases. This week's chart (Friday) has one new entry in the top 40 and that's at 38! The streaming/combined sales official top 40 chart is utterly broken in terms of a 'reasonable number' of new top 40 entries each week, and no-one - not the Official Chart Company, not Spotify and other chart-connected streaming sites, not the record labels (large and independent) is doing a damn thing about it. No desire to tweak the format. Very frustrating. It's a big "screw you" to 90 percent of new songs released each week.
digitalspyfan1 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 19:24.