INTRO & 2024: Part 6 – The Charts, Problems, and Patterns.

HOW DO THE CHARTS WORK?

Since I was last properly paying attention in the late 90s, its significantly changed. And rightly so. It was purely physical record sales in my day and had been since the charts, first known as the ‘hit parade’ began. But, that no longer represents pop music consumption.  In 2005, downloads were incorporated into the chart. This changed the make up of the chart as tracks other than currently widely available single releases could be downloaded. I remember that in the early times of downloads being included Chris Moyles started a campaign with listeners to test the new rules and it saw Billie Piper’s record “Honey To The Bee” make a  return to the top 20 – proving things had changed.

It was actually just the tip of the iceberg. In 2014 streaming was introduced to the singles charts, followed by the album chart in 2015. It’s fair to say all hell broke loose. Old tracks from years gone by would pop up (without any ‘re-release’), album tracks were regular features, and things like tracks from adverts, video games, and tracks played regularly by parents to manage their babies & toddlers would make the odd appearance. The album chart became increasing dominated by classic albums and ‘best of’ collections. In December, the singles chart is pretty much overtaken by an influx of old Christmas hits. You know, the ones we all say we hate...... but technology and the Internet has called us out. Because if we hate them so much, why do they all stream like the Niagra Falls ever December? As it happens, this week – 2 Christmas tracks have already appeared in the lower reaches of the chart. Mariah Carey & Wham! You know the ones.

The introduction of video streaming in 2023 added another dimension. Talking about children’s stuff – The Cocomelon album has performed pretty well in the album chart. Furthermore, each of the elements that make up the chart (sales, downloads, audio streaming, & video streaming) all have their own individual published chart. The Cocomelon track “The Wheels on the Bus” is currently at number 2 in the video streaming chart, having enjoyed 30 weeks in the top ten, 18 of them at number 1. “Baby Shark” has been in the top 10 for years.

Although it can be a little unclear as sources (including, at times, the same source) contradict themselves a bit, this is how it all works. To chart, you need chart ‘units’. A physical record sale = 1 unit. Although I’m not 100%, I believe a paid download is the same. Streaming depend on whether the stream is paid for individually or by subscription. For paid stream 150 streams = 1 unit. For free streams 600 = 1 unit. Also, after 10 weeks, if a track has been in decline, however small, for 3 consecutive weeks it reverts to a 600:1 ratio whether it paid or free. This seemed curiously unfair to me at 1^st but the more I researched and experienced the chart the more I saw the logic. I’ll address that below.

PROBLEMS WITH THE CHARTS

Non-singles:

So, the main issue, as I see it, is that a track does not have to be released as a single in order to chart. Well streamed and downloaded album tracks, or tracks that become popular for some reason (for example, used in a tiktok video), can chart. Probably back in 2014 when streaming was introduced, the problem with this wasn’t seen so much. Streaming was significant then, but nothing like what it would become a few years later. In 2017, Ed Sheeran released his album “÷” which broke streaming records in the early weeks of its release, spent 20 weeks at #1, and 400 weeks in the chart to date......... fair play, man. Obviously, the albums crashed in at #1 – and as a consequence of its enormous streaming popularity, he occupied 14 of the top 15 spots (the Chainsmokers & Coldplay managed to hold position 7). While this gradually diminishes it did go on for a number of weeks. It felt wrong, and signalled a potential future problem as all indications suggested streaming would grow to epic proportions. The danger was that the chart could be totally monopolised long-term by literally a handful of acts rendering it both uninteresting for the general population,  and an economic problem for record companies and producers.

Any tracks (and cheating):

This is a different part of the same problem.. Because any track counts...... the chart becomes weird at times. An popular album release can push a number of records downwards, only to bounce back once the dust has cleared. Similarly at Christmas, because of all the Christmas music being streamed, the top ten tracks at the beginning of December will suddenly fall right down to the very lower reaches of the chart but will be back in the top ten again once you’ve taken your tree down.

The ‘cheating’ bit. About a month or so ago I read an article about Billie Eilish considering her next single for the UK. It was to be taken from the already released #1 album “Hit Me Hard and Soft”. It was likely to be “Wildflower”........ because it had been climbing the charts and was, at the time of the article, at a peak of 20 (it subsequently continued to climb). As this point, I was about 9 months into the project and thought I’d got to grips with the whole ‘anything streaming counts’ thing. But this was an added dimension that flabbergasted me. A track was going to be released as a single........ because it was already doing  well in the singles chart!!!! Get your head around that a second! You can chose your next single based on its popularity in the singles chart already.  It’s kinda brilliant........... but that’s cheating isn’t it?!!

Domineering old acts:

This is mainly a problem for the album chart. As I write this the following older artists are all in the album chart with albums that were released years ago, or complications. Queen, ABBA, Fleetwood Mac, Michael Jackson, Oasis, Eminem, Elton John, Artic Monkeys, Oasis again, Green Day, Fleetwood Mac again, Oasis again, Queen again, Eminem again, Maroon 5, 50 Cent, Elvis Presley, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, George Michael, Billy Joel, Nirvana, Artic Monkeys again, Adele, Whitney Houston, Amy Winehouse, The Beatles, Bob Marley, The Smiths, Britney Spears, Rihanna, David Bowie, 50 Cent again... and Taylor Swift has several old albums hanging around. The question is, what chance does a new budding act have? Why bother? This is a little less of a problem in the singles chart, particularly in the upper reaches. That said, here are the artists with tracks from yore as I write this. One Direction & Liam Payne following the tragic death of Liam. Michael Jackson (Thriller), Ray Parker Jr (Ghost Busters) & Bobby Boris Pickett (Monster Mash) because of Halloween. Fair enough. But..... also Crowded House, Fleetwood Mac, N Sync, Fleetwood Mac again, Coldplay, Journey (....yea “Don’t Stop Believin’”) & Rockwell (yea “Someone’s Watching Me...... that one could be Halloween too). For what its worth, I think its quite fun that, occasionally, an old song will start trending, streaming, and find its way to the upper reaches of the chart. Sophie-Ellis Bexter, Oasis, & Baddiel, Skinner and the Lightning Seeds have all graced the top ten with old tracks this year, all for different reasons.

Hanging around for years:

Self-explanatory. A problem streaming created was that because it reflects actual listening rather than purchase, very popular tracks can hang around for a very ling time, in some cases years. I remember even in the 90s, record companies announcing they were pulling the plug on tracks that had been at #1 or in the top 10 for months and months – which is incredible given that it seemed like venture capitalists killing a cash cow. But, yea it did feel like once Wet Wet Wet’s cover of “Love Is All Around” has been at #1 for what seemed like 15 years not 15 weeks, something had to give. Although you are mainly looking at the lower reaches of the chart, streaming result in this regularly for a many tracks. Here are artists who have a track in the charts that has been there more than 6 months in total (apart from the once I’ve mentioned above). David Guetta, Michael Marcaji, Mark Ambor, Artemas, Iris, Disclosure, Dance Joy, Benson Boone, Taylor Swift, Dasha, Noah Kahan, Hozier, Teddy Swims, Casso/Raye/D-Block Europe, Shaboozey, & Sabrina Carpenter.

THE ACTUAL SOLUTIONS

Non-singles:

So, with the Ed Sheeran Saga, a future problem was arising in which the chart may be continually taken over by relatively few artists. Indeed, were it not for a change of rules, by my reckoning, the week Billie Eilish’s album was at #1 this year, the top 40 of the singles chart would have been made up of almost exclusively Billie Eilish, Taylor Swift, & Dua Lipa tracks (and all from 1 album per artist). The change of rules was that an artist can only have up to 3 tracks in the singles chart where they are the ‘lead’ artists (so they can still feature on other artists tracks). This does solve the issue but also mean that tracks can be doing very well but not qualify for a place in that week’s chart. It also leads to confusion (I have observed it in comment sections) even among people who are aware of the rule, when an artists’ track suddenly disappears from the chart and replaced by the sudden appearance of another. To be fair it is a bit of a mind****!

Any tracks and cheating:

Apart from the ‘3 tracks only’ rule, there is nothing that prevents old tracks completely taking over the chart. As I’ve said before, at present the only real time this is a problem is in December when all the old Christmas ‘classics’ are being tirelessly streamed. It’s pretty pointless writing a Christmas pop tune anymore. You might think that ISNT a problem. Thank goodness. Hooray. The end of annoying Christmas songs. THINK AGAIN!! What it actually means is we are going to have nothing but Noddy Holder screaming ‘it’s chriiiist-maaaas’ behind Cliff Richard for eternity!!!!!!! Incidentally, the Christmas streaming has already begun. On 8^th November, Wham! and Mariah Carey (you know the ones) re-entered the chart.

Domineering old acts:

I have seen this acknowledged and discussed. A new act that is starting out is probably wise not to bother with an album. However, I’ve seen no evidence that the Chart Company is going to do anything about it. So no solution.

Hanging around for years:

The solution to this, as I’ve discussed above, is to increase the number of streams a track need per chart ‘unit’ once it has seemingly passed its peak (if it is after 10 weeks).

HOW I WOULD HAVE SOLVED IT

I think because before 2014 a streaming chart had existed (and still does) that included anything, this data was simply transposed to the standard chart giving us the situation we have.... a situation that became a problem that was going to get worse. To me, the solution is really simple. It’s so simple that I assume it HAS been considered but was rejected for some reason. My answer is this...... in line with tradition (up until the chart was no longer based solely on physical sales), to qualify for the singles chart, a track must, or must once have been, packaged and released AS A SINGLE. It’s so simple I’m slightly baffled why it was ever NOT the case. This does not stop old singles (like Sophie, Oasis, and the Seeds) re-entering. Furthermore, the chart dedicated exclusively to streaming could still include anything. Now, there’s a slight loophole. Artists or record companies could just package EVERYTHING as single. Except, firstly, I don’t think they would. This criteria makes so much sense I think the industry would go with it. Secondly, if it turns out to be an exploited loophole, then rules like the 3 tracks only rule can be applied.

Any tracks and cheating:

My ‘singles only’ rule covers the 1^st half of this. As for the 2^nd – I think that’s a futile battle. Whether or not successful streaming data is published I assume that the people behind the scenes would still be privy to it. So, a single could still be released because it is already streaming well and proving popular. I think we’ll just have to live with it.

Domineering old acts:

This is a tricky one. One idea I had was a time limit. For example a ‘five year rule’. An album no longer qualifies for the album chart 5 years after its first charting date (not its release date because that may be unfair). Simon Ore did not like this idea at all – but I wonder what he would think of this following modification? Because an album may spend just a few months on the chart then have a resurgence 20 years later (and no longer qualify under my above rule) – it should be a maximum of 5 years worth of weeks – so  260 weeks in total but not necessarily consecutively. I should also point out, there would also be a ‘streaming only’ album chart where this rule doesn’t apply and anything goes.

When I was discussing this with Alan Lowe, he suggested a separate ‘new music’ chart. We didn’t go into detail but presumably older acts, based on some cut-off point, would not qualify for this, paving the way for new acts. Both Simon and I liked this idea.

So, what would I do if it were down to me. I’d do 2 things. I apply my 260 weeks total charting rule. Perhaps controversial..... but I don’t really know why we need Michael Jackson, the Beatles, and Fleetwood Mac constantly hanging around in the chart as if we need this to prove they were good!!! It’s not like people are suddenly going to stop listening to them. 260 weeks in total. You hit the max. Congratulations. In addition, I’d also have my Dad’s New Music Chart. Given that I’ve applied the 260 week rule, I’d probably have quite a tight stringent rule for this chart. For example, 3 albums successfully make this chart and then your out.

Hanging around for years:

I think they have got the solution about right here with an increased streaming rate.

PATTERNS

A single or track will often enter the charts at a far lower position than it peaks, take a month or 2 to peak, hang around, then fall away. Tracks often bounce around, rising and falling and rising again. It’s kind of exciting and not particularly predictable. Interestingly, this is how the charts used to work before my time. However, in the mid-90s the charts were very dull in comparison. For the most part, tracks would enter at their peak and gradually fall away. The charts were so predictable that my own prediction would consistently be very close to the mark. My record was a week towards the end of 1996, when I got the entire top 10 singles correct and 8 of them in the correct positions (I predicted #10 & #8 the wrong way round). (I’ve popped that week in the attached pictures)

In my day, on average, a top ten single would be in the top ten for 2 – 6 weeks. These days many of then hang around there for months on end. I think Dasha’s “Autin” (a good tune tbf) holds the record this year with 21 weeks in the top ten (interestingly 18 of them between 7 & 10). They will then fall dramatically – often suddenly falling 20-30 places and then hang around in the lower reaches of the chart for another load of months. I found this curious at first. Then I realised/theorised, it reflects listening rather than purchase, and if we had measured listening in years gone by it was probably always the same. Back in the day, an individual used to purchase a record, that purchase would count towards the upcoming week's chart, and that was the end of it. Many would listen to it over and over for months, right? Conversely, I think you will find many avid record collectors, myself included, will have at least a few records that they purchased but have never listened to once. So, purchase of a record, although it feels like the greatest measure, arguably tells you very little about the popularity/success of a record......   whereas streaming does! I was still curious about the pattern of sudden dramatic falls, however. It was as if after 3 or 4 months, everyone collectively decided to listen to the track much less. Unlikely, no? Of course, as I’ve already discussed, the imposed increase of streams from 150 to 600 to earn 1 chart ‘unit’ explains this.

Some other patterns include – tracks from years gone by reappearing usually because of use in a film, TV show, advert, or due to renewed interest in the artists, or their death. In the album charts, older acts and their classic albums dominate. I discussed this in Part 5 – in which I also noted the pattern of older artists new records. Usually these will enter the charts high and fall away very quickly. I theorised that this was because, in an upturn of events, they enjoy an initial boost from physical record sales in a way new artists do not – you only need to sell 1 record to gain a chart unit. You have to have it streamed at least 150 times to gain that same unit.