Debate of the week Are the charts more realistic now with downloads included?

[Have a disco]

Ok with the decline of vinyl and now cassette and soon to be cd singles has the introduction of the download charts worked is it realistic or are the artists still bulk buying there own product to get a No1 hit.

Is it realitic to believe that the charts are real not fixed

[Candybeatdiscos]

i preferred the old fashioned way - sales only - i mean the beatles managed to get plenty number ones this way - if a band or atsist is that good then thats the way it should be done, none of this airplay rubbish, i mean you have certain stations that wont play a particulat track as its not thier type of music, but it may well be a popular track and sells enough to get to number one....

[BeerFunk]

I suppose back in the 60s, before audio tapes, and inevitably pirac, then it was a 100% fair representation of what people liked (well - the people that could afford to buy the records at least).

Now? Isn't it just a farce? Hitting number 1 in the UK charts is no longer the massive achievement that it used to be - playing out Top Of The Pops on a Friday night. It's sad, but then we move with the times...

[Corabar Steve]

Now? Isn't it just a farce? Hitting number 1 in the UK charts is no longer the massive achievement that it used to be - playing out Top Of The Pops on a Friday night. It's sad, but then we move with the times...I don't know if there are any facts to back it up, but I think getting to number one maymean selling a hell of a lot more now that it has to contend with album tracks & oldies. Plus folks are a lot more likely to fork out 79 -99p for the track they want rather than pay for a CD single.

Has anyone stopped to think that the reason (pre-download inclusion) that you had to sell so little to get to number one in the singles chart was there was so few places to buy CD singles that nobody did & therefore there was an overall decline in singles sales. Was the percentage of sales the same?

When you think that the only ways to get a single apart from download are online (why bother unless you want a particular mix on it, when you can get the album from the same place for only a couple of quid more?) or if you have easy access to a record shop.

Back in the day you could buy singles in Woolworths, Smiths, John Menzies, some branches of Boots & various other non record shop outlets (some seaside gift shops I knew even sold them) & there were a lot more independent record shops (& chains for that matter). Did the reduction in availability affect the decline in sales?

[Dragonfly]

not when you have chris moyles saying "right chaps lets get billie piper to number one !" :D :D

[rob1963]

To answer the question in the thread, yes, the charts are MUCH more realistic & accurate now that downloads are included.

It seems that most people who want a current track will just download it these days, rather than buy the cd single. After all, more retailers are gradually stopping selling cd singles - which confirms how small their market has become.

It's not hard to understand. Would most people rather go out to the shops & spend £1.99 - £2.99 on a cd single, or stay at home & download it for 79p?

As for artists downloading their own songs to make the charts, I'm no expert, but I'm sure there are more effective marketing & promotional methods than sitting at your computer & downloading thousands of copies of your own single!

:)

[RnGary]

Personally i find using a mix of R1 top 40, R1 top 40 dance chart, R1 top 40 Rnb chart plus the top 20 ish on i tunes works pretty well in terms of keeping the music fresh - especially for under 30's dos.
Interesting though is how very very few songs from the last couple of years last more than six weeks and are then never asked for again. Around 5 years ago there were quite a few standards that are still asked for (eg Rock DJ, Groovejet, Can't get you out - you know the sort of stuff).
It doesn't really matter if the charts are fairer or not - it's what the punters hear and want that counts on the evening.
Having said that - having downloads included has to be more accurate when so many people buy their music this way. Depends how accurate the whole system is though.

[flatliners]

i think the charts started going down hill years ago when gallop stopped compiling them
there should be 2 charts one for the kiddies and a propper chart

[BeerFunk]

I don't know if there are any facts to back it up, but I think getting to number one maymean selling a hell of a lot more now that it has to contend with album tracks & oldies. Plus folks are a lot more likely to fork out 79 -99p for the track they want rather than pay for a CD single.

Has anyone stopped to think that the reason (pre-download inclusion) that you had to sell so little to get to number one in the singles chart was there was so few places to buy CD singles that nobody did & therefore there was an overall decline in singles sales. Was the percentage of sales the same?

When you think that the only ways to get a single apart from download are online (why bother unless you want a particular mix on it, when you can get the album from the same place for only a couple of quid more?) or if you have easy access to a record shop.

Back in the day you could buy singles in Woolworths, Smiths, John Menzies, some branches of Boots & various other non record shop outlets (some seaside gift shops I knew even sold them) & there were a lot more independent record shops (& chains for that matter). Did the reduction in availability affect the decline in sales?
Yeah I suppose that makes sense, maybe it's the standard of music that has changed (a whole new can of worms - not for this thread ;))

[Steve 'B']

Its all fixed!!

[rob1963]

Its all fixed!!

Steve,

I wouldn't make controversial statements like that...someone might jump down your throat & accuse you of not living in the real world! :p

:lol:

[spin mobile disco]

I'll let you know if its fixed if the beatles make it back to top 10 now they are available for download. Reason being I know a lot of people who are planning or already have downloaded beatles tracks to get better quaility recordings than were previously available.
Must admit looking at their old number ones portfolio and thinking could do with better copies of some of them.

[Corabar Steve]

I'll let you know if its fixed if the beatles make it back to top 10 now they are available for download. Reason being I know a lot of people who are planning or already have downloaded beatles tracks to get better quaility recordings than were previously available.
Must admit looking at their old number ones portfolio and thinking could do with better copies of some of them.

Are they available now then?



P.S. Steve B's not living in the real world :sj:

[Have a disco]

In my own opinion In the year 2000 there was 41 No1s a massively controlled and hyped up market pace compared to last year 2006 back down to the average 23 per year

the previous years

2005 = 27
2004 = 28
2003 = 23
2002 = 29
2001 = 29


Look at this weeks To 20 Stats

Position Last week Artist Title
1 1 RIHANNA FT JAY-Z - UMBRELLA
2 2 MAROON 5 - MAKES ME WONDER
3 3 BEYONCE & SHAKIRA - BEAUTIFUL LIAR
4 5 HELLOGOODBYEHERE (IN YOUR ARMS)
5 6 GYM CLASS HEROES - CUPID'S CHOKEHOLD
6 7 AKON - DON'T MATTER
7 4 SNOW PATROL - SIGNAL FIRE
8 9 TIMBALAND / FURTADO / TIMBERLAKE - GIVE IT TO ME
9 11 MUTYA BUENA - REAL GIRL
10 10 BOOTY LUV - SHINE
11 14 AVRIL LAVIGNE - GIRLFRIEND
12 55 PIGEON DETECTIVES - I'M NOT SORRY
13 13 NE-YO - BECAUSE OF YOU
14 12 LINKIN PARK - WHAT I'VE DONE
15 18 MIKA - LOVE TODAY
16 16 MANIC STREET PREACHERS - YOUR LOVE ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH
17 15 AMERIE - TAKE CONTROL
18 47 R KELLY FT TI & T-PAIN - I'M A FLIRT
19 61 KAISER CHIEFS - EVERYTHING IS AVERAGE NOWADAYS
20 NE DIZZEE RASCAL - SIRENS

Look at the highest climbers, being Pidgeon detectives, R Kelly & Co and Kaiser Cheifs and Dizzie Rascal straight in at 20

It must be working if not as a whole single being sold just one track of a CD???

[Corabar Steve]

In my own opinion In the year 2000 there was 41 No1s a massively controlled and hyped up market pace compared to last year 2006 back down to the average 23 per year

the previous years

2005 = 27
2004 = 28
2003 = 23
2002 = 29
2001 = 29



Have you got stats going back any further?

It's just that Beerfunk got me thinking were there any more or less number ones per year now or in what most of us perceive as the golden age of quality music (60s, 70s, 80s, possibly even 90s)? But when people were certainly buying more records.

[Have a disco]

try here mate

http://theofficialcharts.com/all_the_no1_songs.php

Please note I have only based these stats over the last 10 years

[Corabar Steve]

Thanks for that Badger, it does seem by & large that there were less number ones per yeatr on average 15 / 16 with a few peaks of about 20 or so, but still less than the last 7 years.

[CRAZY K]

Its all fixed!!

probably right--can anyone explain to me how the Zimmers or whatever they are called are likely( ALLEGEDLY) to get to No1.

Ignore how its assessed--what IS the attraction?

Nothing personal or ageist im just working on what I hear:eek:

They have ruined a brilliant ground breaking 60s brit pop song--

Hope I die before I get old--how can you sing that when your 80???????????

I have totally lost the plot on this as a Who fan.

Im going to lie down in a darkened room ---and listen to the best of the Who-

CRAZY K

[rob1963]

P.S. Steve B's not living in the real world :sj:

:lol:

[bank]

Top Of The Pops on a Friday night.

Well, shame it didn't stay, that was the whole hype of the music industry, you got to number one you got on top of the pops. Although in a way allowing all downloads to enter the chart it therefore makes it fair on older songs although the system was to be a challenge to get number one, not go out of the 40 and back in again, not really the top 40 any more.

[PropellerHeadCase]

Keep in mind that the chart is based on units moved (or downloaded) in that given week, not cumulative over the life of the track, as such some songs might (possibly) come back into the charts years after their release, but unless McCartney pleads with all fervent Beatles fans to download 'Hey, Jude' in the same week it ain't gonna happen.

I think downloads are a much fairer and more representative way to do the charts, just as legal downloads are a much fairer and more representative way to buy/sell music, though I do not like this 'album exclusive' business.

[Have a disco]

With all the media formats out there the charts are much more fairer than say a few years ago remember in the sixties there really were only 3 ways to hear the music (Live, On radio wether pirate or not and Television) Now the are so many forms of media outlets, it out guns the No1's of the past 30 years befor the 90's with the help of major advertising and pre playing using all the media sources about

So what use to be an average of 15/16 a year has been watered down to anything up to 41 a year of No1's prehaps now this should calm down a bit

[theoloyla]

The charts are better now that they have slowed down a bit. There is more consistency although rubbish (IMO) bands like McFly still enter at 1 and crash 20 places the next week.
As for the Zimmers the reason they could be number 1 is exactly the same reason Mr Blobby and Teletubbies etc could do it - they are on TV. The power of the goggle boz is still enormous and remember the chart is a measure of popularity not quality or musical integrity. The great British public's taste in music is no better or worse than it ever was. People say how great the 60's was but forget that Des O'Connor had a big hit with "**** a Dum Dum". It is always one of the first signs of betting old and boring when people bemoan that the music of today is not as good as it was.

[rob1963]

It is always one of the first signs of getting old and boring when people bemoan that the music of today is not as good as it was.

I guess I'm getting old then, as I think lots of today's music is toilet!

[theoloyla]

But what I am saying is that if you get a copy of the charts from 25 years ago when you were a pirate dj and probably remember lots of good music you will notice that there was an awful lot of dross in the charts too. We only remember the good ones.

[Dragonfly]

But what I am saying is that if you get a copy of the charts from 25 years ago when you were a pirate dj and probably remember lots of good music you will notice that there was an awful lot of dross in the charts too. We only remember the good ones.

I thought they were late 80s early 90s????

"When will I will I be famous .....I can't answer I can't answer that"

[rob1963]

But what I am saying is that if you get a copy of the charts from 25 years ago when you were a pirate dj and probably remember lots of good music you will notice that there was an awful lot of dross in the charts too. We only remember the good ones.

That's an interesting point, Theo...you could be right!

:)

[theoloyla]

I thought they were late 80s early 90s????

"When will I will I be famous .....I can't answer I can't answer that"
Very witty! Now there was a band that were rubbish (IMO) and I even worked for the company that promoted them!

[rob1963]

Now there was a band that were rubbish (IMO) and I even worked for the company that promoted them!

Many teenage girls at the time would probably have disagreed with you on that one!

[Flex]

The great thing about the current charts is that an individual title can now climb the charts. Much like in the so called 'golden age'. Up until recently tracks would enter high and immediately drop out as the cd sales subsided. This was largely due to songs only being bought by fans upon release. With the introduction of downloads and the proliferation of media delivery, a track can actual enter, climb, drop, climb again. Songs can now 'cross over' as they have a longer life span. Its a very healthy state where in effect a song can have the time to grow on the listener and maybe introduce them to different genres.

[BeerFunk]

Theo, I don't agree fully with what you're saying. Yes, there is, and always has been rubbish in the charts, but I really do believe that today's standard has dropped somewhat. You surely couldn't say I was 'getting old' at 24?? :)

Take your 'best' 20 songs from 1966, 1976, 1986, 1996, and 2006 - and compare? Which would be your most played CD, both personally, or for DJing?

Without actually looking into it, I could predict my order to be something like this... 1996,1976,1986,2006,1966

[theoloyla]

Many teenage girls at the time would probably have disagreed with you on that one!
There's plenty of teenage girls who would disagree with me today about McFly. Maybe when their hormones settle down their ears and brains will start working and they will start to appreciate music.

[rob1963]

There's plenty of teenage girls who would disagree with me today about McFly. Maybe when their hormones settle down their ears and brains will start working and they will start to appreciate music.

:lol:

[PropellerHeadCase]

Many teenage girls at the time would probably have disagreed with you on that one!

Which is why there are so few teenage female DJs ;)

[Corabar Steve]

Hope I die before I get old--how can you sing that when your 80???????????

But I take it you have no issue with Pete Townend (62) & Roger Daltry (63) preforming it?

[PropellerHeadCase]

Hope I die before I get old--how can you sing that when your 80???????????

Isn't it ironic? Don'cha think?

And if they are called Zimmers, or whatever, that's just even funnier Zimmer Frame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_(tool))

[Corabar Steve]

That would be why they are called the Zimmers