Old songs on the UK charts

It’s a good article, and raises some valid points. He doesn’t seem to provide any solutions though.
 
It’s a good article, and raises some valid points. He doesn’t seem to provide any solutions though.
No, I was scrolling and scrolling hoping to see a solution. I really have no idea, how to correct it.

One of the biggest issues for me, is that anything that 17 year olds aren't listening to don't chart. It isn't structured in a way Time To Say Goodbye or Orinoco Flow for example could chart, despite having a market. Although TikTok and Netflix skews that somewhat, I mean that sea shanty got to no.1.
 
The download chart looks more like the charts of old, but the numbers are embarrassing to really justify giving them more impact.
 
It’s probably just exposed that we do all tend to just listen to the same old shit. Just by the nature of streaming and the ability to count its stats means the charts reflect it much more.

It was probably the same back in the 90s but just hidden by the nature of the chart being based on physical products.

The week Baby One More Time was #3 or #5 or whatever, it probably was the most consumed song in the country based on people listening (across the single, album, radio etc) - but as it had already sold 900k or so it wasn’t the biggest selling single of that week.
 
I also don’t really think there is a way to correct it - as it is reflecting listening patterns. Other than maybe a few more ACR type restrictions, there isn’t much more to do that doesn’t make a complete mockery of the actual statistics.
 
There is more they can do in terms of ACR. Here we go again, but I'd say increasing the ratios as songs age - rather than that one step we have now, and then removing them from the chart into some form of catalogue chart completely after a determined age. That would at least allow more songs to break through further down the chart.

I'd also still try to prioritise chosen streaming over passive streaming.

But does also feel that the change in listening/consumption has become so fundamental that it can't be 'fixed' - or at least not in a way that makes any comparison with how the chart used to be relevant.
 
The one thing I can think of is probably never ever going to be implemented, and I don't even know if the tech is there - but essentially discount or remove entirely passive plays of published playlists. They're not really very different to radio airplay.
 
It’s probably just exposed that we do all tend to just listen to the same old shit. Just by the nature of streaming and the ability to count its stats means the charts reflect it much more.

It was probably the same back in the 90s but just hidden by the nature of the chart being based on physical products.

The week Baby One More Time was #3 or #5 or whatever, it probably was the most consumed song in the country based on people listening (across the single, album, radio etc) - but as it had already sold 900k or so it wasn’t the biggest selling single of that week.
I agree that wasn't the best method either. The plague of high new entries was rubbish too. So many songs missed #1 or got to #1 unfairly. I say unfairly in that they lacked the cultural impact of songs they denied a number one.
 
I think you could only create something which would look like the old singles chart by making it much, much more artificial. One way to do it might be by giving the record companies control over when a song enters the charts to reflect the old style single release date. In the first week after its chart release date, it would get credited for 100% of its streams. In week two it would get 95% of its streams and would then drop by 5% each week until everything drops out of the charts after twenty weeks. No re-releases for old Christmas songs or anything else which has charted in the last ten years.

I’m in no way suggesting that they should do this, but it would at least be familiar for those of us who grew up in the 80s and 90s.
 
I don't like ACR particularly. The chart seems so constructed in a way that it never was.

Downloads were perfect.
 
I think you could only create something which would look like the old singles chart by making it much, much more artificial. One way to do it might be by giving the record companies control over when a song enters the charts to reflect the old style single release date. In the first week after its chart release date, it would get credited for 100% of its streams. In week two it would get 95% of its streams and would then drop by 5% each week until everything drops out of the charts after twenty weeks. No re-releases for old Christmas songs or anything else which has charted in the last ten years.

I’m in no way suggesting that they should do this, but it would at least be familiar for those of us who grew up in the 80s and 90s.
But what we have is artificial anyway - or at least entirely arbitrary in terms of how something counts as a sale and the maths involved. So I don't think we should necessarily be afraid of doing something like that.
 
I don't like ACR particularly. The chart seems so constructed in a way that it never was.

Downloads were perfect.
Neither do I, in that it's a level of manufactured artifice. But of course things would be even worse without it.
 
That being said the charts of the past were rigged consistently anyway. I'm sure plenty of songs would never have charted well without the odd Our Price or Woolies chart compiler being slipped a fiver to add a zero to sales. I mean it wasn't even comprehensive back then, it was sampled.
 
And of course all of this comes from me (and most of us here, I think) considering that the chart was RIGHT back in our day. And despite our differences in age, the chart didn't really change for decades. It's only in the last decade that things changed and went to shit.
 
There’s so many variables that where do you even start I guess. Currently the weight of streams of someone who pays for a service is higher than someone who uses the free version. Fair enough to an extent, but is obviously therefore counting two people streaming songs in different ratios. Chuck in how many streams compares to a person downloading a song, autoplay algorithms from streaming services, throw in some hot ACR adjustments and then acknowledge the 2,500 cassette singles hardcore fans purchased (clearly to actually listen to) and come up with your nicely weekly sales for each song.

Makes the days of minimum prices and maximum format numbers seem straight forward!
 
There is more they can do in terms of ACR. Here we go again, but I'd say increasing the ratios as songs age - rather than that one step we have now, and then removing them from the chart into some form of catalogue chart completely after a determined age. That would at least allow more songs to break through further down the chart.

I'd also still try to prioritise chosen streaming over passive streaming.

But does also feel that the change in listening/consumption has become so fundamental that it can't be 'fixed' - or at least not in a way that makes any comparison with how the chart used to be relevant.
Yes, all of this. I think an actively chosen search and click for a track on a streaming app and a second search/chosen listen to that track after (say, adding it to one of your own playlists) should count as something/be given a weighting power far closer to a download sale.
 
And of course all of this comes from me (and most of us here, I think) considering that the chart was RIGHT back in our day. And despite our differences in age, the chart didn't really change for decades. It's only in the last decade that things changed and went to shit.
Everyone bemoaned the charts in the 00s - and given the state of singles sales towards the middle of that decade, I can entirely understand why - but for me it really feels like it was a bit of a halcyon era for representation. The top 40 each week was a proper grab bag of all the different genres, and pretty much every subgenre got their own little heyday at the top at some point or with some band or the other.

(The 90s doesn't feel like it was necessarily all that different in that regard either tbf, from the TOTP repeats)
 
I still refuse to believe Bobby Helms (or Kelly Clarkson for that matter) is more popular than the Pogues or Band Aid. God bless Spotify playlist placement.


This is my favourite version.
 
And of course all of this comes from me (and most of us here, I think) considering that the chart was RIGHT back in our day. And despite our differences in age, the chart didn't really change for decades. It's only in the last decade that things changed and went to shit.

Agreed. The chart was far from perfect (the album chart probably more reflecting what people were actually consuming at times), but the variety allowed many different genres and acts to thrive.

There was one chart in 2000 where the top ten had The Corrs, Eminem, Richard Ashcroft, Oasis, Steps, Artful Dodger and Alice Deejay as the top seven. What a mixed bag covering a lot of genres. Then it was all 90% different about two weeks later.
 
I don't like ACR particularly. The chart seems so constructed in a way that it never was.

Downloads were perfect.

Downloads were great - when a song was big, it was big. But it didnt hang around forever because once you purchased it once you didn’t again. I guess that is the crux, but that’s never going to change now so there isn’t really any method of making it more ‘exciting’ without rules that kind of defeat the purpose.

I guess the charts are just, and always will be, less relevant now?
 
Downloads were great - when a song was big, it was big. But it didnt hang around forever because once you purchased it once you didn’t again. I guess that is the crux, but that’s never going to change now so there isn’t really any method of making it more ‘exciting’ without rules that kind of defeat the purpose.

I guess the charts are just, and always will be, less relevant now?
Very sad, unless they can find a way to recreate sales. The more I think about it, the more I think adding something to one of your own playlists should count as a sale (but you can only do one of those sales) and streaming should be downgraded in comparison to that.
 
Downloads were great - when a song was big, it was big. But it didnt hang around forever because once you purchased it once you didn’t again. I guess that is the crux, but that’s never going to change now so there isn’t really any method of making it more ‘exciting’ without rules that kind of defeat the purpose.

I guess the charts are just, and always will be, less relevant now?
I sometimes wonder whether it has hit us harder in the UK, as a country which never included airplay in its charts. Because that's the significant change really. Until streaming counted, the chart only ever recorded sales - what people were buying. Streaming brought in a lot more passive listening, which is more similar to airplay, and including what people were listening to. Then the OCC decides the official chart is somehow going to combine both into one chart and devise a fanciful system to somehow create a chart based on two quite separate things.

So relevance in one chart is a hard thing to achieve I'd say, as the two things being recorded are quite different.
 
What I don’t understand is why they haven’t based charts on CHOSEN streams rather than playlisted ones.

Well, I say I don’t understand, but it’s obvious that the major record companies are dominating that discourse.
 
Is there even a definition of chosen stream that is fair, technically feasible, and would be consistent across platforms?

How can it be THAT difficult to work out? You choose a various artists playlist, it doesn’t count (or counts less), you choose an artist, it counts more.

They know EXACTLY what we’re up to on their sites as it is anyway…
 
I also want to do, the 'This is..' playlist for each major artist, does spotify choose the order of those lists or do the record companies have an input? I feel those lists have an influence on the back catalogue SINGLALS streaming figures.
 
Is your liked playlist active or passive listening?

Are "This is Artist" playlists active or passive?

Is playing the first song at the top of a playlist, rather than hitting play on the playlist as a whole, an active or passive stream?

That's just Spotify off the top of my head. Who would of course need to agree and give this information to the OCC. You would very quickly encounter edge scenarios that need to be decided one way or another and you'd then need to get all the platforms to agree. YouTube proper (as opposed to YouTube music) especially would prove difficult to fit into criteria
 
The period where the charts were at their most accurate is probably the download era. Every era was in some way crooked, the days of 'chart return' stores being the worst with those stores being given cheap stock, very few indie stores being part of it and bullshit such as 'regional weighting' being used to keep acts with a large local fanbase down. Once every sale was counted (at least in theory), it was fairer but really, that period where downloads were 95% of the chart was by far the most reliable.
 
Is your liked playlist active or passive listening?

Are "This is Artist" playlists active or passive?

Is playing the first song at the top of a playlist, rather than hitting play on the playlist as a whole, an active or passive stream?

That's just Spotify off the top of my head. Who would of course need to agree and give this information to the OCC. You would very quickly encounter edge scenarios that need to be decided one way or another and you'd then need to get all the platforms to agree. YouTube proper (as opposed to YouTube music) especially would prove difficult to fit into criteria

But also, playing a playlist or even an album is not the same as picking an individual song full stop.

That article makes a really important distinction- it’s not a singles chart anymore when it should be.

Platforms need to conform to certain rules to be counted. The same as stores did back in the day.

It’s SO FUCKING OBVIOUS it HURTS.
 
The period where the charts were at their most accurate is probably the download era. Every era was in some way crooked, the days of 'chart return' stores being the worst with those stores being given cheap stock, very few indie stores being part of it and bullshit such as 'regional weighting' being used to keep acts with a large local fanbase down. Once every sale was counted (at least in theory), it was fairer but really, that period where downloads were 95% of the chart was by far the most reliable.

The 80s were a mess- loads of specialist interest shops didn’t count for the charts and so you have ridiculous high sales for things like Hi-NRG records that never charted.
 
The 80s were a mess- loads of specialist interest shops didn’t count for the charts and so you have ridiculous high sales for things like Hi-NRG records that never charted.
Totally. It was even used against known, successful bands. The Smiths regularly sold enough to be top 5 but the sales were in 'the wrong shops' and the Manchester-heavy sales were rounded down so they found themselves in the mid teens. The perils of being popular on an indie label in the 80s.
 
I want to play Disease by Lady Gaga. I currently have four ways to do that.

I can hit play on "This is Lady Gaga" knowing it is top of that playlist.​
I can hit play on "Liked" knowing it is top there.​
I can play Lady Gaga, knowing it is her top of her five songs.​
I can click the search bar, type the word disease, and then play the result that comes up.​

I actively want to choose Disease, but some of those would be active, some would be passive. It wouldn't be fair.
 
I want to play Disease by Lady Gaga. I currently have four ways to do that.

I can hit play on "This is Lady Gaga" knowing it is top of that playlist.​
I can hit play on "Liked" knowing it is top there.​
I can play Lady Gaga, knowing it is her top of her five songs.​
I can click the search bar, type the word disease, and then play the result that comes up.​

I actively want to choose Disease, but some of those would be active, some would be passive. It wouldn't be fair.

But why does that matter? All it does is levels the playing field- so all songs that are chosen directly count, but things thrown to the top of playlists don’t have an automatic advantage.

It’s the same as illegally downloading vs paid for downloading was. You count one stream (pun intended) of choice but not the others and get a chart that is far more valid and representative than the nonsense we have now.
 
Totally. It was even used against known, successful bands. The Smiths regularly sold enough to be top 5 but the sales were in 'the wrong shops' and the Manchester-heavy sales were rounded down so they found themselves in the mid teens. The perils of being popular on an indie label in the 80s.

Stock Aitken Waterman always talk about how many of their records suddenly seemed to stalk at #41/#42 when they’d flown up the chart. Post top 40 (and therefore radio play listing and TOTP appearances) it was a lot harder to manipulate.
 
Because you would need to define a chosen stream and no definition will actually make much sense when applied to real people's behaviour.

But in the same way, you would go into a record shop and choose to buy a cd single with one track counting towards the chart, right? That bears no representation of the overall most popular songs if you count in how many plays/ sales an album was getting. So the first song on a mega selling album in the physical sales era was probably being played/ more popular than most charting singles, but (rightly) wasn’t counted.

The UK singles chart has, by design, always been based on one stream of “sales” or consumption until this mess.

We also don’t include airplay and surely playlist streaming is just the same kind of angle as that.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom