DS Forums

 
 

Chart Rules Tweaked (At Last!)


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 24-12-2016, 10:06
scratchy23
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,517
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 appreciate the quality of nostalgia but I personally don't see how making the effort to go out a physically buy music and spend money on it can be more fun than having 99.9% of all music at my fingertips for £10 a month!

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
scratchy23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 24-12-2016, 10:24
Neil_N
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.
Neil_N is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2016, 13:37
MTUK1
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,783
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.
The chart has always been manipulated. Even when it was just vinyl.
MTUK1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2016, 14:42
digitalspyfan1
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.
digitalspyfan1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2016, 14:51
MTUK1
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,783
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.
Fewer new entries, not less.
MTUK1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2016, 14:55
digitalspyfan1
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.
digitalspyfan1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2016, 15:01
Peter the Great
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,073
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.
I think you misunderstand the new rules? Instead of 100 streams equalling a sale it will be 150. Sure I still can't see it will make much of a difference. Personally I think there should a limit on per user regarding how many times they have streamed a track. 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.
Peter the Great is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2016, 15:15
digitalspyfan1
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.

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.
digitalspyfan1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2016, 16:47
MTUK1
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,783
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.
Although it's free to the user Spotify still earns money per stream from the advertiser and therefore pays royalties to the artist.
MTUK1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2016, 17:41
Peter the Great
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,073
Although it's free to the user Spotify still earns money per stream from the advertiser and therefore pays royalties to the artist.
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.
Peter the Great is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2016, 17:50
MTUK1
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,783
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.
Yes, but the record label is still getting paid. Whether it's enough is another matter.
MTUK1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2016, 18:18
Peter the Great
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,073
Yes, but the record label is still getting paid. Whether it's enough is another matter.
But no one is disputing that. They get money from radio airplay but it doesn't count towards the charts. If someone isn't paying for music I don't see why their streams should count towards the charts. What Spotify is paying is irrelevant.
Peter the Great is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 21:17.