The Weekly DiScussion: Is this the death of the singles chart?
- Artists:
- Various »
With all downloadable tracks now chart-eligible, the face of our beloved top 40 is about to change forever.
With effect from January 1st, the UK singles chart rules have been changed. As well as the physical single rules being relaxed (a single is now chart-eligible if 25-minutes long, an increase from the previous 15-minute limit), a larger change is liable to alter the UK charts forever, be it for better or worse.
Any track now available via download is chart eligible and can make its way to number one if it so desires (or you do, collectively). Consequently, an obscure Gomez (pictured) b-side is as eligible to go top ten as the next Coldplay single, or whatever is being papped out that week.
What does this mean for the charts though? I think it's fair to say that there's two sides to the coin.
The benefit unsigned musicians can receive from distributing and releasing their own tracks via iTunes is definitely the upside. It's now possible for a band to release a digital-only single at minimal cost and drum up their own support for a chart entry, without the need for a costly 7" or CD pressing. It's risk-free and really rather liberating.
However, with the charts now a free-for-all for every album track, live recording and novelty trance wankamajig, the value of a chart position is rapidly deteriorating, as if the demise of Top of the Pops hadn't made that clear enough.
It's possible a return to the more organic chart politics of the 1970s will take place, when tracks went to radio on the day of release rather than six weeks upfront; where people went to the charts to find new music and things grew and rose as the weeks progressed.
Equally, it could be the death of the chart altogether. Perhaps the single, too.
DiScuss: Is this the end of the singles chart, or will the new rule revitalise the top 40?
- Various - Kats Karavan - the History of John Peel on the Radio
- Various - Annie Mac Presents
- Various - New Moon: Music from the Original Motion Picture Soundtrack
- Various - Fear Of A Wack Planet
- Various - Crayon Angel: a Tribute to Judee Sill
- Various - Warp20 (Chosen)
- Various - Warp20 (Recreated)
- Various - Strung Out: Volume One
From the archive
-
ByLarm 09 - The DiS Preview
-
Father's Day buyers guide: five records for the (old) man in your life
-
DiS Recommends: Shapes and Sizes
Tweet This
Share on Facebook....
''the value of a chart position is rapidly detrioratng''
maybe in musical credibilty, but ot at all for the musicians you cite in the paragraph above that.
also, I dont get the final line. Do you mean the end of a chart with any intergrity? or are you suggesting that with more anticipated artists in the chart, we just wont bother to arrange them by sales anymore?
i think
relaxing the time constraints of physical releases is a good idea - it was a stupid rule.
as for the any-download-can-be-eligible rule, the mind boggles as to why thats a good idea.. surely itll make it HARDER for smaller bands to get into the chart, now it'll be clogged up with already successful acts' album tracks? what's next? charts based on radio play?
so does this mean
that if you downloaded an album off itunes all the tracks in that album would gain a 'sale' in the singles chart? if so, surely when a big album comes out most of the songs will get into the singles chart....maybe, i don't know.
i guess if you download the album as a whole
then it wouldnt count as a single, but if you just downloaded the track individually, then it would..?
quite interesting
i'm not sure which of the two.
i can see how it might revitalise the singles chart though. Definitely a change for the better (cant get no worse).
presume that if you download an album
as a whole album it counts as an album, and if you go to the bother of downloading each track individually, then they might count to the singles chart. I think it means that the charts will be full of tracks of successful albums and tunes from adverts. Boo.
the musicians themselves
are very unlikely to care.
there's no money in singles, only in albums. and even that pales in comparison to live and merchandising revenues.
the final line is deliberately ambiguous so as to provoke debate. rather than just pick silly little holes in the article.
I'm quite looking forward to it...
...not that I've been that bothered about them . I'm sure the novelty factor will soon wear off, and everyone will get back to bitching about how shit thet are.
I'm just looking forward to it all going pear-shaped when the Beatles back-catalogue becomes available on iTunes...
Good news
I'm not too bothered about what it does for the charts, as I don't really buy anything that ends up there anyway.
But what I'm pleased about is hopefully bands will do longer cd singles now, instead of those shoddy 2 track things. Now that the time limit of cds has increased to 25 minutes, has this affected how many tracks can be on the cd? Has it increased from 3 tracks again? Or will it still only be one 3 track cd, one 2 track cd, one vinyl/other? Anybody know? Would be great to have longer singles/eps from bands that otherwise may limit the amount of songs so that they are chart compatible.
Why Why Why
Why Gomez?
but no.
the idea that it'll shrival up and die seams to forsee the loss of interest that people will take in charts. Why should that have anything to do with how it's conducted? Some people will always want to know which cat is fat and go and look, while others will say the don't care and seam not to.
Whole albums charting
This sort of thing already happens in the Hot 100 Billboard chart when a really big artist releases a new album and pretty much every song off that album enters the chart - think it probably happened with that High School Musical thing although they also include airplay i believe.
The thing i don't really like with the new chart is all these old songs re-appearing in the chart. Again going to the US chart i'm pretty sure that after 20 weeks if a song is below position 50 it gets removed from the chart and i think this stops older songs constantly hanging around. Don't believe that is going to happen here unless an artist removes their song from all these download stores but can't see anyone doing that.
For me,
the singles chart is a bit like sugary cereal. I liked it when it was a kid, in all its short-term glory, but it's been a very very long time since I've felt the urge to partake. These days, I want to eat something more........wholesome.
U2 = the future
Having seen this week's midweek charts, the first two acts to score download-only tracks in the Top 40 will be U2 and a live Kooks EP. New talent is going to do ever so well out of this.
I'm with Paulo, I'm intrigued as to if this means we can see four-track CDs again rather than the fobbing off of spreading three B-sides over three different formats. That did a great deal to killing the physical single, deliberately.
I'm off to play the 40-minute Blue Room by The Orb. Now, that was a single.
I actually don't know the answer to that.
I'll find out for you.
.
People will argue that the single charts are still relevant after the changes until either the first large tour by a superstar or the summer festivals.
After the top 20 turns into a Kylie Minogue/U2/Reading main stage greatest hits set list for one week, then they all drop out of the the chart the following week it will be hard to argue the charts hold any real value beyond showing what's sold well in the previous week.
Is there a minimum length for tracks via download under the new rules? If not the organised mass downloading of skits from rap albums could be worth it's weight in rofl.
"worth it's weight in rofl"
let's get married.
There is no finer
Specimen than a beatifully crafted 7" record with an ace B side. Id actually cry if they just faded out.
Ill be interested to see how it works when theres a big album release - Won't tracks from that just make up the top ten?
Why not
If only one track by artist can make the charts.
What's the point with eventually having 5 Snow Patrol and 4 Razorlight songs in the TOP40 ?
#shudders#
now there's a particularly horrific image!
on the whole this is freaking great news as it means the whole myspace generation (IE anyone with a laptop) are just going to clench that little harder on the knackers of the industry - there are however a few grey areas where it'll get interesting with the rules - like live bootlegs? - surely this legitimises the theft of music?
i'm probably talking absolute bollocks (again), but that's just how i read it.............
Just get rid
of the damn thing. This reminds me of a sketch in the comedy series 'Look around you', in which the Post Office tower and a statue of Easter Island are included in the Top 10. How long before we see pasties, carrots and carpet cleaner cropping up in the charts? There's no money for Artists in singles anyway.
Although
having said that I'd rather have an inanimate object in the Top 10 than Razorlight. Much less offensive.
And what if..
..a band record a live show and then release the tracks individually? Could the top howevermany be dominated entirely by a U2
Bugger.
Hit return by mistake.
...be dominated entirely by a U2 gig presented in track-by-track form?
Was how that was meant to end.
Presumably all songs would have to be downloaded from legit sources and paid for, so illegal bootlegs shouldn't make it in.
Also, are they going to limit it to new releases? If not, what's to stop Strawberry Fields being number 1 forever?
And while we're talking charts, can we start some kind of agitation for the passing of a law to ban Candle in the Wind from ever, ever, ever being released as a single again? No matter who dies?
'wankamajig'
That is the best word I've seen in absolutely ages!
As for the charts, I kind of stopped caring a long time ago. I've never really been into singles. I've always found them overpriced, when all you're getting is 1 or 2 B-sides. I would only consider singles for a band I already liked anyway, so would already own the A-side.
If this leads to B-sides being more easily obtainable and well-priced, then yay.
If not, then meh.
Oh Gomez
what happened to thee?
The lovely people at DiS Towers seem to be
very morbid when it comes to the weekly DiScussions. Is this dead? Is that dead?
Next weeks Weekly DiScussion: dove_from_above ate some Bernard Matthews chicken earlier that tasted a bit funky. On further inspection, it transpired that said chicken was over a month out of date. Is dove_from_above as good as dead?
It's the end of the world as we know it
not quite but...
one wonders if the majors haven't had a hand in this in terms of re-selling music in the download form in much the same way as they made oodles of money from re-selling LPs on CD format in the 80s
the charts will surely be cluttered with all sorts of chaos
might be interesting to see however if any new(ish) artists attempting cover versions to 'cash in' on an old songs popularity are forced down the chart due to people downloading the original
also - seeing as myspace are now selling music I wonder if myspace bought downloads will count for the chart and to what territory the artists' downloads will be assigned
seems complicated
"it will be hard to argue the charts hold any real value beyond showing what's sold well in the prev
When have the charts ever done anything but show what sold well in the previous week? Isn't that exactly what they've always been supposed to do? And haven't bears shat in woods for ages now?
Not really the same
No one will re-buy an album on iTunes if they have the CD
they will if they can't get passed the DRM
or they don't know how to rip it
iPods aren't just for kids y'know - besides, plenty of old duffers will cherry-pick tracks thus piling old stuff into the charts and then presumably exposing it to a whole new audience
this isn't necessarily a bad thing
I guess we wait and see what happens
but I agree with what someone already posted about the whole top 40 being from 64-69 when the Beatles back catalogue goes up on iTunes
i don't think it will make that much of a difference
singles will still be released and promoted, and if some randomer is gonna buy one track off an album, it'll probably be that.
'the value of a chart position is rapidly deteriorating'
don't see this. surely easier distribution = more competition = harder to get a chart place = good thing?
Finally...
...with a little "organisation," Eazy-E's 'Nutz On Ya Chin' can be sent to it's rightful place atop the British charts. Who is with me?
how many singles do you have to sell
to get into the top 40?!
Won't there be loads of shit just slip sliding in out of the charts? And would this effect what commercial radio has to play?
"...like live bootlegs? - surely this legitimises the theft of music?"
Nope - if you make a sound recording YOU own the copyright in that sound recording, meaning that live bootlegs are pretty much a free-for-all unless the artist expressly prohibits it. I think, thats just off the top of my head... :S
I can't remember when I stopped listening to the Charts, but these new rules are unlikely to get me interested in it again. Having a chart clogged up with stupid novelty tracks and old tracks from all the different artists on iTunes is not going to make it fun to listen to - just annoying as you wonder where all the new music is that you were sure came out the previous Monday. And is iTunes the only chart-approved source for download tracks (I don't download music so I don't know!)? If so, the chart still won't be a true reflection of what is being listened to as not every single band, new or otherwise, is going to be on iTunes.
And the whole singles are useless to artists thing is right - the only people who benefit from singles are the record labels.
So, yeah - there you go! Raaarh!
"it will be hard to argue the charts hold any real value beyond showing what's sold well in the prev
I always assumed that's what the chart was for - to reflect what people are buying. Now, it seems, we're going to actually find out...
woops
i should've read this first.
"the only people who benefit from singles are the record labels"
yeah! we make loads of money on singles!
4 tracks
according to http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/02/singles_chart_digital/
they should raise it to 6, get rid of price restrictions and include eps in the chart. But that would be sensible.
miserable
you're all a miserable bunch on here aren't you?
the new rules regarding physical singles will hopefully make them a more attractive purchase. this is a good thing.
the new download rules will just make the charts more interesting and relevant to what is actually being bought. there's always been cases of random songs invading the charts, such as when the oasis singles all got re-released in the late 90s or when the wedding present released one single a month, or this week when iron maiden are number three. it doesn't mean any radio stations will actually play this music, it's just nice to know that is what people are buying.
radio will continue playing pretty much what they do now, despite the chart positions, although the radio-play itself will probably help the records make the charts. i don't have any figures to hand but surely it's pretty obvious that new music, in general, will massively outsell the older stuff.
not true mr leppard!
new music does not massively outsell the older stuff, not physically or in downloads. big selling current records do "shift a lot of units" but the lower reaches of the singles chart over the last few years could be reached with a couple of thousand sales. these will be easily outnumbered by downloads of pink floyd, the beatles and all the other massive selling catalogue artists that keep major labels afloat.
perhaps a "new releases" chart will evolve in tandem with an overall sales chart.
the chart is clearly NOT the best way to DiScover new music!
why are they unlikely to care?
its still promotion isnt it?
Rules...
The CIN chart people cocked everything up years ago when (bowing to the boy-band era) they shortened CD singles. You see they had to buy the rights for each track which made singles loose money when they gave them to record shops for free like the early take that & spice girls stuff.
Also they limited the length of the CD, and made it so remix CDs could have 6 tracks. And if your CD had too much free stuff they docked your sales (one dance CD had too many folds in the cardboard CD case so lost all sales of that disc...).
This modern change is no suprprise, the money is in the downloads for the big 4 too. If you click on buy album it goes for the 'download album' chart, if you buy all the individual tracks it goes for the 'download single' chart. Fuck knows what happens if you try to pay for each track on your CD single in HMV individually - presumably it only counts for the A-side.
Heres to an organised campaign to get odd stuff to the top 40/75 in a few weeks when the chart calms down again. 'Bike' by Pink Floyd/Sid Barrett is my choice for the top.
ooo, er
I find this all very unsettling, yet strangly exciting as well...
Not To Be Simplistic...
...but surely the solo function of the singles chart is to display the 40 biggest selling songs of a given week?
Therefore surely whatever those 40 biggest selling songs are should make up the singles chart?
Therefore surely the new rules make perfect sense?
I find it difficult to believe...
...that most musicians wouldn't be at least a bit chuffed to be in the top 10 or wherever?
It's a badge of prestige and popularty and most people, especially those who get up on a stage and perform, have at least a bit of vanity in them.
.
:P You know what I mean...
In Photos: Monotonix @ Hector's House, Brighton
In Photos: The Specials @ Hammersmith Apollo, London
In Photos: Camden Crawl Launch Event @ The Blues Kitchen, London
In Photos: La Roux @ Shepherds Bush Empire, London
Last.fm
SoundCloud
MySpace
Friendster
RSS
Comments
- Post a new comment on this article