New UK Singles Chart Industry Rules ~ Ludicrous!

[Gemini-Phoenix]

Some of you may already be aware of the new changes to how the chart is compiled, but for those of you who aren't, here it is in a nutshell:

Basically, under new chart rules as of next week (January 1st 2007), ANY track which is downloaded can count towards compiling the chart. EVEN golden oldies, so long as they meet the other chart criteria and sell well enough. So basically, this means that John Lennon's "Imagine" or Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" could well be next week's number one, despite not actually having had a recent release.

These new rules have caused a bit of a shake-up in the industry, as newer artists will, for the first time, be up against EVERY OTHER TRACK from history, meaning that some new releases may never even chart!!! If the 40 most popular downloads happen to be from the past, and sell more downloads than current artists, then new releases won't even see the light at all...

For thos enot in the know, until now, the only downloads that have actually counted / contributed to the chart are those which have a physical manifestation available in the shops as a single, be it a Cd or Vinyl or whatever. But now they plan to open it up to every song EVER RELEASED!


To me, this sounds like the studidest decision the industry has made ever since they allowed downloads to count towards the chart. The only benefit this seems to have is to line the pockets of artists who have had their day in the limelight by technically reselling old songs via downloads.

The industry seem to think that if a certain song appears in an advert or as part of a soundtrack to a movie, then it will help drive sales of downloads. The more popular the sales, the higher in the chart they will place, thus driving more sales...

The whole chart system now seems corrupt. Even more so than it was before downloads were introduced. What are your thoughts on this new structure?

[RivaOni]

Why's it sio stupid, if the likes of Girls Aloud, Mcfly and whoever else makes chart topping music nowdays have got some true classics to battle against, they might just get their act together and start actually making something that you can listen to for mroe than a week without cringing...

[Hendo]

I think it's a great idea!

[affleck]

Does anyone still really care about the singles charts anymore? I mean, I remember the days when I used to tape the Top40 on a Sunday, but does anyone still do that and think the chart is a meaningful entity?

[Hendo]

Nope, and that's why I think it's a great idea.
Give the bastards some competition.

[skull_leader]

you know that radio 1 have a policy of not playing a song more than ten years old (unless they have one of those mystery year things). so if an old song goes to number one. then they have to play it.
I for one would love to see classics in the crappy singles chart, rather than the crud we get these days. it might force the quality of music up to compete with yesterdays best.
Then again people will probably download Abba and elvis and all yesterdays old crud.

[FatTrucker]

I thought the whole point of a chart was to reference which entities were gaining the most sales. So regardless of how old something is, surely if more people are purchasing it than anything else then it should be at number one, regardless of whether these purchases are made by download or at retail.

Downloadable media is definitely the future for things like music so why on earth would you still want a chart based solely on CD sales, when arguably more people now get their music in downloadable formats?. CD is a dying format and MP3 and its variants looks like becoming the new standard for a while so I would argue that leaving the old chart system in place would have been the aberration, not the other way around.

Why should a chart only reflect new music?, perhaps this new system will help filter out a lot of the talentless pop tosh, so only the best, and most popular artists can actually compete for a proper chart ranking.

It might be the kick up the arse that the industry needs.

[Bob Syko]

Sounds like a great idea to me. At least now it will actually represent what is popular not just how many teenage girls are buying the newest, crapest pieces of shit that the latest girl/boy group decide to vomit out.

[chixiethepixie]

and nine times out of ten its not the misuci that decides the sales its how short/tight/revealing the clothes are or how good looking/cute the members are

[Gemini-Phoenix]

I thought the whole point of a chart was to reference which entities were gaining the most sales. So regardless of how old something is, surely if more people are purchasing it than anything else then it should be at number one, regardless of whether these purchases are made by download or at retail.

Thing is, should downloads actually even count? After all, they don't technically exist in the first place... I agree that the charts should feflect what people are buying, but I still feel that they should only count towards actual sales of the physical manifestations and not virtual equivalents.

I disagree that MP3 virtual files are the future. I still think Cd's still have a future, as not everyone has a computer or wants to download something that doesn't exist. And what will happen at times like Christmas? How would you feel if you got a copied CD-r for Xmas with a bunch of songs on, opposed to something bought in the shop?

The people who purchase songs on iTunes are lazy and idle and obviously have no problem giving these companies their money for something that doesn't exist. Even though the Cd's I buy I rip into MP3 and don't touch thereafter, I still prefer to go out to a shop and buy them and have them there rather than download the same tracks.


The chart SHOULD reflect sales of new music. Why should the crap from the past re-enter just because a bunch of 13 year olds have been downloading Mr Blobby via iTunes, or the latest Elvis track to have been used in a car / Jeans / Beverage advert? If anything, it will cause new artists to think twice and pehaps give up. The sogs from the past should be left there where they belong. They've had their day and giving them a second chance and resurrecting them from the grave is not good.


On a positive side, if certain tracks seem to do well on download (Smells Liek Teen Spirit may be a track to use as an example), then it may mean the companies would then rerelease a physical manifestation for retail...


PS. Would I also be right in thinking that the Beatles back catalogue is still (At time of writing) unavailable for official download? Meaning there are still some artists who we won't see enter the chart...

[Bob Syko]

I think downloads should be counted towards charts since not all bands can afford to release proper cd's of their music and if they could then a lot of shops wouldn't stock it.

As for people being lazy for downloading music, that is just silly. Maybe they just like one track off one album from a certain band and don't want to spend money for the entire album when they would only put the one song on their MP3 players anyway.

I personally don't buy singles anyway, they seem a waste of money when you could get an album full of good songs for the price of a few crappy singles.

I also prefer going out and buying an actual CD but downloading is the future of music and it's going to help a lot of smaller bands get noticed like it already has.

[chixiethepixie]

The people who purchase songs on iTunes are lazy and idle and obviously have no problem giving these companies their money for something that doesn't exist. Even though the Cd's I buy I rip into MP3 and don't touch thereafter, I still prefer to go out to a shop and buy them and have them there rather than download the same tracks.


The chart SHOULD reflect sales of new music. Why should the crap from the past re-enter just because a bunch of 13 year olds have been downloading Mr Blobby via iTunes, or the latest Elvis track to have been used in a car / Jeans / Beverage advert? If anything, it will cause new artists to think twice and pehaps give up. The sogs from the past should be left there where they belong. They've had their day and giving them a second chance and resurrecting them from the grave is not good.


On a positive side, if certain tracks seem to do well on download (Smells Liek Teen Spirit may be a track to use as an example), then it may mean the companies would then rerelease a physical manifestation for retail...


PS. Would I also be right in thinking that the Beatles back catalogue is still (At time of writing) unavailable for official download? Meaning there are still some artists who we won't see enter the chart...

PMSL!!oh dearie what a laugh you are-how many times can one person contradict themselves in a single post

Allowing downloads/older music to compete in the charts will enable those who run the charts to see what is really popular and quite frankly most of the music that is being produced now is either total crap or it is a cover or remix of an older more popular song and as you said if it is popular then the record people may release the cd copy.

if the new artists are scared of a bit of competition past or present then they are in the wrong business-and creating an mp3 is cheaper than the making and printing of cds not to mention the costs to distribute them to the shops etc

And just because you think that something is crap doesnt mean that others do and if it sells then it should be in the chart regardless of the year it was released.

Some people would rather buy an mp3 and stick it on their phone or mp3 player than buy the 'real' version

And people tend to give itunes vouchers for xmas rather than a copied cd-

so because you can hold the item in your hand then thats ok but something that you cant physically hold in your hand isnt?well what about the internet and cyber space?you cant hold that

[Andy Kurosaki]

personally i stopped giving a toss about the music charts a long time ago.I can remember a time where it was quite exciting to see tracks fighting their way up the charts,battling it out to stay at the top for as long as possible.Now songs go from number one to zero in such a fast time that you can blink and miss some of them.there's so much manufactured,x-factor nobodies garbage in the charts that i've passed caring.
Besides,most of the music i'm into (japanese anime theme tunes,hardcore rave)aren't in the charts,so they're useless to me.

[ScotsWahey]

Does anyone still really care about the singles charts anymore? I mean, I remember the days when I used to tape the Top40 on a Sunday, but does anyone still do that and think the chart is a meaningful entity?

Ah the good old days before the started talking over the start and the end of songs ruining it for everyone. I dont bother with the charts anymore, barely even bother with the radio.

[FatTrucker]

Even though the Cd's I buy I rip into MP3 and don't touch thereafter

That there is the point old son. Even a CD afficionado such as yourself no longer uses it as a viable form of media, preferring to actually listen to your music on an MP3 player where you can store hundreds/thousands of tracks all accessible from a handy menu.

The only difference with downloaders is they prefer to pay less and get the same media, immediately and in that format from the off, rather than pay extra for a CD, wait for delivery/take a trip to the shops, then spend the time ripping it to MP3 and transferring it to their player of choice.

MP3 and other formats like it are the future. There's no waste (environmentally sound), its cheaper for the producer and the end user, its far more convenient, its a product you can buy and receive immediately without leaving your armchair, allows for mass storage in a tiny space, and its a format most people prefer to use anyway.
Its probably also worth noting that it will be largely older users who prefer the security of a CD (the people whose taste you are concerned may warp the charts) with younger generations being far less concerned with the idea of paying for virtual content, because they aren't married to past retail conventions like us crusties.