UK Charts/ Midweeks 2023

This is highly anecdotal, but one thing that I've found from running a pub quiz for primarily student-age people is that a unless they're at a Taylor Swift level of fame, a lot of the hitmakers of the streaming era are almost totally anonymous to their target audience. 21-25 year olds still know who S Club 7 are, but have no clue who Dermot Kennedy is.
 
I imagine your Becky Hill’s and Ella Henderson’s couldn’t be named by the majority of the younger crowd either, despite racking up hundreds of millions of UK streams between them.

I guess consumption is more passive on the whole than going out and buying a release, so people are in turn less invested in the artist.
 
I liked Glass Animals years ago, they do some perfectly decent downtempo stuff that would have been huge in 2000. They make music that sits well on car adverts and BBC Sports recaps. They’re Groove Armada but only 10% as good.

Heat Waves is largely unremarkable, they’ve done a lot better.

None of which really matters - the issue is how easy it is for Spotify to control the charts and, knowing that, choose to push songs that absolutely do not need it.
 
Heat Waves is one of the better smashes of the past few years.

I'd agree though that the anonymity of chart stars these days is exactly due to the passive nature of listening these days. The charts aren't really reflecting what people LIKE so much as they are playlist placements.

It doesn't help that those playlist placements tend to favour a lot of very BEIGE box-ticking nonsense a la Becky Hill - chart hits BLEND IN more than they ever did.
 
A hobby horse of mine is that only 'active' streams people have sought out and clicked/streams from playlists people have made themselves should count towards the chart, but obviously that's never going to happen - it'd be giving up far too much control on the labels' part with the deals they do with the likes of Spotify.
 
New Zealand brought in a recurrent system this week. Any song OR album over 18 months old now banished to the recurrent chart, which is now displayed the main chart.

With 20 odd re-entries in the album chart, it certainly has freshened that up. Might still be a bit long for singles wise. I would’ve thought maybe 12 months for singles and 24 months for albums would reflect a bit more the short and long term nature, but good to see one main chart addressing the issues.

nztop40.co.nz

The Official New Zealand Music Chart

Information about the Official New Zealand Music Chart. This includes certification awards, licensing chart data, chart rules and code, and chart return information.
nztop40.co.nz nztop40.co.nz
 
Yes, I'd favour different limits for singles and albums. An album is (I think still) a whole campaign and that remaining on the chart for over a year if an act is still releasing tracks from it or touring it seems valid. To look at the UK chart for an example, Harry’s House being eliminated in a few weeks wouldn't seem fair to me - whereas GH sets by Abba, Queen, Fleetwood Mac, Elton John etc etc very much should be.

The album chart shouldn't be as stagnant as it has become - but I don't think it needs to be as dynamic as the single chart.
 
lolly said:
Yes, I'd favour different limits for singles and albums. An album is (I think still) a whole campaign and that remaining on the chart for over a year if an act is still releasing tracks from it or touring it seems valid. To look at the UK chart for an example, Harry’s House being eliminated in a few weeks wouldn't seem fair to me - whereas GH sets by Abba, Queen, Fleetwood Mac, Elton John etc etc very much should be.

The album chart shouldn't be as stagnant as it has become - but I don't think it needs to be as dynamic as the single chart.
Click to expand...

Surely a separate Artists and Greatest Hits chart would solve a lot of problems.
 
Sheena said:
Surely a separate Artists and Greatest Hits chart would solve a lot of problems.
Click to expand...
Yes, it would get rid of most of the albums clogging the album chart.

I think probably you need both a time limit and a separate compilation chart, to avoid labels playing around with tracklistings and 'new' releases to circumvent the rules.
 
GH being separated out will solve half of the problem.

The album chart is still also routinely clogged with "classics" like Rumours, Morning Glory, any of the Arctic Monkeys ones... but without imposing an arbitrary time limit, we'll have to live with it.

And also accept that as Lolly says, Becky Hill will forever be re-charting five-year old "albums" by tacking on a new track every 6 months.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I agree, 18 months is a bit soon. I had a look back at last weeks chart, and there was 11 albums in the top 40 for over 145 weeks, all of these being studio albums. However, I think that is more NZ specific (as in the physical market is much more finished than it is in the bigger markets), so I do get it from their side as the album chart essentially is just a streaming chart. Mix that with a much lower amount of artists doing promotion there and it essentially is the same stuff being streamed again and again for literal years.

However, whilst there is still some level (albeit still small compared to what it was in the day) of actual sales action in the UK, I’d think perhaps at least 2 years plus would make a bit more sense.
 
lolly said:
Yes, it would get rid of most of the albums clogging the album chart.

I think probably you need both a time limit and a separate compilation chart, to avoid labels playing around with tracklistings and 'new' releases to circumvent the rules.
Click to expand...

Ella Henderson being a great example. From memory it spent one week top ten and about 2 top 100. Then came back six months later and now has racked up dozens of weeks in the chart. All down to three or four dance collabs being chucked on the back. Probably only digitally as well, so not even on the actual physical version.
 
Devil said:
Ella Henderson being a great example. From memory it spent one week top ten and about 2 top 100. Then came back six months later and now has racked up dozens of weeks in the chart. All down to three or four dance collabs being chucked on the back. Probably only digitally as well, so not even on the actual physical version.
Click to expand...
I think a few months back we reached an interesting tipping point when a Weekend album/GH which doesn't even exist physically and is basically just an online playlist charted in the top 5.
 
Whatever the system, the labels will find a way of cheating it but there needs to be a change. And I can't see artists being against it: how pissed off must Arctic Monkeys be that the same few songs from AM cause it to be a fixture while their more recent albums slip away and into the back catalogue?
 
I'm looking forward to this week's sales chart for albums - Record Store Day has made an absolute mess of it for the last 4 or 5 years and it's hilarious.
 
Banishing albums or songs to a recurrent chart seems a bit redundant if you accept the purpose of a chart is to reflect the most popular or best selling songs/albums at the time so if these are recurrent so be it. I haven’t paid attention to a full chart in years other than to see where a fave has ended up on release week. The charts are stagnant but for singles isn’t it more that predefined playlists are the biggest issue as they are having more of an impact in that people aren’t choosing to voluntarily search out some of the tracks as such?
 
Last edited:
Which still leaves the charts redundant really. People passively streaming published playlists isn't a true indicator of popularity either.
 
I think the only two solutions available to us are either a weekly Eurovision style vote to decide the charts. Or to CRIMINALISE anyone not curating their own playlists.

I'm good with either.

(Under option 1 it would also be CRIMINALISED to vote Ed Sheeran)
 
As others have said before, I think there's a lot of difference between actively chosen streams than passive playlisted ones. That both are equally weighted in terms of chart compilation is the problem.
 
Well I guess another question is should charts reflect exactly what is consumed each week, or are they designed to reflect what is currently popular but using various metrics to keep them fresh and relevant? I guess what is the point of them from an industry, artist and consumer view?

Traditionally it has been the latter, hence why releases were held back, released on multiple formats, no longer produced and available after a certain point etc. All of which actively excluded currently popular songs being included in any given week. Add in no way of measuring how often a song was listened to on a particular album, which sold just as many copies as singles, and the top 40’s of pre 2012 really didn’t reflect actual consumption in a valid way.

Consumption should arguably use airplay as well, and also mean minimal rules - so without ACR, thus Mr Brightside would probably be about #20 right now, 19 years after release. If that fits the purpose of the chart then great. If not, then perhaps a different approach. Plus one stream is, based on consumption, equal, so any consideration of paid streaming or playlist streaming may be a minefield.

Using more rules based approaches ought to keep the bulk of the data (streaming, sales, video streams, physicals) but eliminate songs based on age, free vs paid, playlisted or not, potential ACR etc. By nature it is more manipulated, but if eliminating songs such as Christmas classics, those ridiculously old and so forth makes the charts more useful for the industry, for artists and more interesting and enlightening for consumers, perhaps that may be fit for purpose?

Whatever method has shortcomings, even just translating streams into sales compared to download and physical sales is in itself an arbitrary calculation.
 
BoysForSeles said:
Banishing albums or songs to a recurrent chart seems a bit redundant if you accept the purpose of a chart is to reflect the most popular or best selling songs/albums at the time so if these are recurrent so be it. I haven’t paid attention to a full chart in years other than to see where a fave has ended up on release week. The charts are stagnant but for singles isn’t it more that predefined playlists are the biggest issue as they are having more of an impact in that people aren’t choosing to voluntarily search out some of the tracks as such?
Click to expand...
I don't accept that that's the entire purpose of a chart. The concept of ACR implicitly recognises that there is more to a chart other than just "what is most popular" (a pretty ambiguous term which switched hugely in terms of what it meant the second streams were incorporated as opposed to just sales) as well.
 
Interesting to note that the #1 album from last week fell right out the top 200 this week, along with the #6 and the #9.

Freya dropped out the top 100, and Jessie and The National out of the top 40.

If six albums of last weeks top ten leave the top forty the following week, surely this is not reflecting genuine popularity at all?
 
It reflects how some artists "stream" well and some artists sell well. Because the ratios used are still utter bollocks, an album can be top 10 on sales and miss the Top 100.
 
It's indicative that the majority of physical album sales are fanbase purchases, and those markets are all exhausted after week 1. Very few dedicated fans of any artist will be waiting until week 2 to purchase.

I'd agree it just means chart peaks are overly flattering, but then I don't think ANYTHING about the album chart is representing popularity of albums these days, neither streaming of playlists nor front-loaded sales.



On a totally separate note, the singles chart slowly feels like it's opening up to more potential Kate Bush moments. The new Guardians movie currently has "Dog Days Are Over" back in the top 30, close to matching it's original chart peak. Santana's "Maria Maria" also very close to breaking the top 40, I guess Tik Tok related.
 
Last edited:
Interesting article.

I do like how the OCC guy claims Ellie not holding onto top twenty in its second week is an exception. Literally only four #1 debuts this year have remained top ten second week, out of 16(!).

www.theguardian.com

‘It’s not a pop-the-champagne moment any more’: is the UK album chart broken?

Artists are hitting No 1, then dropping out of the Top 100 the following week. Industry figures ponder whether the chart is still a barometer of taste – or just a marketing ploy
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
The OCC are either so deluded or just fucking lazy and trying to control the narrative so they don’t have to do the work to implement sweeping changes to the chart system

Either way, sack em all
 
The problem is that physical formats are now marginal in the marketplace. HMV has toys, t-shirts and Blu-rays as you walk in so even the 'record shops' have most of the records at the back or in the basement. There's no casual audience for a physical product because the casual audience no longer sees them anywhere - there's none in WHSmiths except maybe a few compilations at Christmas, only the largest supermarkets will have some and they'll be compilations heavy too. The days of people picking up the new Busted album for their 10 year old while doing the weekly shop in Morrisons are dead and gone but they might still nab "The Rat Pack - 3CDs of Classic Recordings" for £7 at a push.
 
I think it’s even simpler than that. If streaming is the norm in the charts, you’re never going to change that all the biggest albums of all time (and of the last few years) are going to continuously, week in week out, earn a consistent number of streams. So there is a huge bottleneck in the top 100 albums because there are so many classic albums; if a new release opens above that threshold but the following week goes below that threshold - the difference might only be a case of 5000 units but it’s enough to take from the Top Ten to outside the top 200

And yes, the impact of physicals in the first week has had a positive impact on music retail, but for the charts it’s a case of Week 1 big, Week 2 practically non existent, that’s also going to impact the chart run of new releases.

Still - even if the converted unit sales are so much smaller than they’ve been when it was 100% physical (and we’re never going back to those days) , I’d rather we had a chart based on new releases where we could actually measure the impact of new releases, and a separate catalogue chart to track the performance of classic albums and artists. At the moment it’s new releases gatecrashing a catalogue chart when it should be the other way around.

They’ve made fundamental changes before - remember when compilations were included in the main chart? It is possible to adapt to the new normal.

They’re generally just not arsed anymore and they need a visionary in charge. Not sure if anyone looks at the Indie singles chart - remember when that used to be the most interesting chart of underground dance and alternative music. Independent music is not what it used to mean, so that chart is just songs by Adele and Arctic Monkeys in their 300th week on the chart. What is the point of that chart?

They are walking blindly into irrelevance, I don’t know why they don’t act.
 
How is Anne Marie doing in the midweeks? I am assuming an easy top 5 album for her?
 
funky said:
Number one beb

But two big new albums at #2 and #3; not sure how far ahead she is
Click to expand...
Just 1 copy (and with missing streaming she's realistically probably already well behind Travis Scott)

1 Anne-Marie - UNHEALTHY (10,706) [9,232 physicals, 991 streaming, 483 downloads] *
2 Travis Scott - UTOPIA (10,705) *
 
Really we need Travis Scott to kill a few more of his fans if we want Anne-Marie to get the number one.
 
Travis Scott could be a rapper, country singer, soul singer or solo boyband member. I literally have no idea who he is.
 
Wednesday update

1 Travis Scott - UTOPIA (16,394) [16,161 streaming] *
2 Anne-Marie - UNHEALTHY (13,684) *
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top Bottom