|
||||||||
Chart Rules Tweaked (At Last!) |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,517
|
Quote:
I'm old school. You went into a shop and bought a single. Or later, a CD single. You had something to show for your money. Then that went and digital downloads were all the rage. You paid your money and some bytes got sent to your computer. Not anything like as much fun. I've never downloaded a single, or indeed anything else, for that matter. If I like a few songs by an artist I'll buy the album on CD. At least you can still get them.
Now it's streaming. It remains a complete mystery to me. You don't even own the music, you seem to just rent each song play by play. It's like going to a library, taking out a book, then taking it back the next day and then taking it out again, and so on. You've got the book all the time, but you never own it. But each time you renew the book, it somehow counts for the chart. It's as if I had bought The Grommets new single on CD, and took it home and played it ten times in the first week, but my mate, who's a much bigger fan of the band, bought his and played it a hundred times in a week. So his CD single counts ten times as much for the charts as mine? And every time he plays it, it keeps counting? ![]() Basically I'm now too old to know or care about the chart anyway, or how they compile it. I feel incredibly lucky to be in the age of streaming where music is so easily accessible! In decades to come lord knows how it'll get even more accessible. I can't begin to imagine |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Cuddling MyLee
Posts: 4,730
|
To be fair it's the sad sign of the times. I do think this has made the chart open to manipulation and a lot of the music nowadays appeals to the lowest common denominator, especially with this STI Tropical Dance pop that needs to be nipped in the bud or criminalised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,783
|
Quote:
To be fair it's the sad sign of the times. I do think this has made the chart open to manipulation and a lot of the music nowadays appeals to the lowest common denominator, especially with this STI Tropical Dance pop that needs to be nipped in the bud or criminalised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 650
|
I don't get how increasing the streams:sales ratio will make any difference. Won't it mean less new entries in the chart, not more? Perhaps the opposite approach would be better? I mean have a limit to stream views. Once a song reaches a certain amount of streams and hits number one it can't have anymore. You could have a limit to streams even if songs don't reach number one.
The Spotify UK Chart has Mariah Carey's All I Want For Christmas Is You at 497,000 views per day. 497,000 x 7 is 3, 479 000 a week. Let's say the stream limit for a song is 3 million steams a week. When a song hits that number it stops and drops down the chart, replaced by another song to reach that figure or a figure as close to that figure. I accept that is tweaking the system but I reckon a stream limit would generate a lot more movement in the top 40. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,783
|
Quote:
I don't get how increasing the streams:sales ratio will make any difference. Won't it mean less new entries in the chart, not more? Perhaps the opposite approach would be better? I mean have a limit to stream views. Once a song reaches a certain amount of streams and hits number one it can't have anymore. You could have a limit to streams even if songs don't reach number one.
The Spotify UK Chart has Mariah Carey's All I Want For Christams Is You at 497,000 views per day. 497,000 x 7 is 3, 479 000 a week. Let's say the stream limit for a song is 3 million steams a week. When a song hits that number it stops and drops down the chart, replaced by another song to reach that figure or a figure as close to that figure.. I accept that is tweaking the system but I reckon a stream limit would generate a lot more movement in the top 40. |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 650
|
You could have a limit on how long a song can remain in the chart.
For example: Drake's One Love is still in the top 40. It's at number 36. It's been in the chart for 38 weeks! How about no song can be in the top 40 for more than 20 weeks. 20 weeks is five months - that's long enough. If no song can be in the top 40 for more than 20 weeks you'd get far more movement. The OCC - with the approval of the big labels - could make major changes if they wanted. There has to be a real desire for change to make the top 40 less stagnant. |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,057
|
Quote:
I don't get how increasing the streams:sales ratio will make any difference. Won't it mean less new entries in the chart, not more? Perhaps the opposite approach would be better? I mean have a limit to stream views. Once a song reaches a certain amount of streams and hits number one it can't have anymore. You could have a limit to streams even if songs don't reach number one.
The Spotify UK Chart has Mariah Carey's All I Want For Christams Is You at 497,000 views per day. 497,000 x 7 is 3, 479 000 a week. Let's say the stream limit for a song is 3 million steams a week. When a song hits that number it stops and drops down the chart, replaced by another song to reach that figure or a figure as close to that figure.. I accept that is tweaking the system but I reckon a stream limit would generate a lot more movement in the top 40. |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 650
|
I don't think any change in the stream:sales ratio will make any difference. It's tinkering around the edges and not addressing the main problem which is the stagnation of chart. Too many songs hang around for months and months boosted by repeat streaming. As mentioned in my last post - how about a limit - a cut-off point for songs. 20 weeks. If a song has a 'continuous run of 20 weeks' in the top 40 then it drops out of the chart. It automatically goes to 41 and the song that was at 41 the week before goes up to 40. 20 weeks is five months - that's a long time for any song to be in the top 40. People would have heard a song enough times! You could be more radical. Have the song limit as 16 weeks - four months. After four months the song drops out of the top 40. Under this limit, the song wouldn't be allowed another 20 week run limit if it went back up the chart into the top 40. Once it hits 20 weeks it falls outside the top 40 for good. I can't see any other alternative because streaming is here for good, it's never going to be scrapped. Songs will hang around for months and months meaning less new entries. Tweaking the streaming:sales ratio is not radical enough. A limit on the time any song can stay in the top 40 is, in my humble opinion, the only way to generate greater movement, more new entries. Quote:
Also only paying subscribers of streaming services should count. If you are using the free version of Spotify why should your streams count? You are not paying for your music.
Edited update - I agree about Free Spotify. It's outrageous free streaming views count to the overall Top 40/100 sales chart. I've no idea how they got away with that! Yes, that should be scrapped a.s.a.p!It's clear the format is not wholly fair and needs some major changes. |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,783
|
Quote:
I don't think any change in the stream:sales ratio will make any difference. It's tinkering around the edges and not addressing the main problem which is the stagnation of chart. Too many songs hang around for months and months boosted by repeat streaming. As mentioned in my last post - how about a limit - a cut-off point for songs. 20 weeks. If a song has a 'continuous run of 20 weeks' in the top 40 then it drops out of the chart. It automatically goes to 41 and the song that was at 41 the week before goes up to 40.
20 weeks is five months - that's a long time for any song to be in the top 40. People would have heard a song enough times! You could be more radical. Have the song limit as 16 weeks - four months. After four months the song drops out of the top 40. Under this limit, the song wouldn't be allowed another 20 week run limit if it went back up the chart into the top 40. Once it hits 20 weeks it falls outside the top 40 for good. I can't see any other alternative because streaming is here for good, it's never going to be scrapped. Songs will hang around for months and months meaning less new entries. Tweaking the streaming:sales ratio is not radical enough. A limit on the time any song can stay in the top 40 is, in my humble opinion, the only way to generate greater movement, more new entries. Edited update - I agree about Free Spotify. It's outrageous free streaming views count to the overall Top 40/100 sales chart. I've no idea how they got away with that! Yes, that should be scrapped a.s.a.p! It's clear the format is not wholly fair and needs some major changes. |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,057
|
Quote:
Although it's free to the user Spotify still earns money per stream from the advertiser and therefore pays royalties to the artist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,783
|
Quote:
True but that doesn't mean it should be included in the charts. These listeners are not paying for their music. You might as well include YouTube plays and radio airplay which is what Billboard do on the US Hot 100.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,057
|
Quote:
Yes, but the record label is still getting paid. Whether it's enough is another matter.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:43.



