Radio 1's head of music, George
Ergatroudis, has confirmed data from streaming services such as Spotify will
soon count towards the official UK chart placement.
Ergatroudis was speaking at the Radio
Academy Playlists: What Makes A Hit? event last night (February 17), when he revealed that plays on Spotify and a variety of
other music streaming services will soon be incorporated into the UK charts.
The Official Charts Company launched an
Official Streaming Chart back in 2012, but previously denied plans to
incorporate the data into the Official Chart countdown. In the US, Billboard started including
online streams for its Hot 100 countdown at the start of 2013, which also
counts YouTube and VEVO plays. It remains to be seen if the UK charts will also start to count those plays.
Oh, and to top it all: The Radio Academy - which describe themselves as "a registered charity dedicated to the encouragement, recognition and promotion of excellence in UK radio broadcasting and audio production" - has made a short statement on their @radioacademy Twitter page to explain the lack of presence - or shall we say - the ban - of the Queen of Pop on Radio 1.
Oh, and to top it all: The Radio Academy - which describe themselves as "a registered charity dedicated to the encouragement, recognition and promotion of excellence in UK radio broadcasting and audio production" - has made a short statement on their @radioacademy Twitter page to explain the lack of presence - or shall we say - the ban - of the Queen of Pop on Radio 1.
"R1 has moved on from Madonna now.
Vast majority of her fans over 30, not R1 audience."
Ah yes - because someone's age always defines what kind of music (or artists) they like!
So, to zoom it up: now the UK chart is going to shit just like the US one! Lets examine:
So, to zoom it up: now the UK chart is going to shit just like the US one! Lets examine:
*People can stream whatever they want, hate it and never listen to it again. Yet it counts towards the charts!
*People can watch the same music videos on YouTube hundreds of times, or just leave them on loop for hours to count as plays! Don't think for a second that megafans of artists like Lady Gaga and One Direction haven't been doing this in the States - and it costs them nothing!
*Same goes for those damn social media campaigns to get some ridiculous songs back in the charts (such as "Killing In The Name Of" not too long ago). Now you don't even have to bother to buy the thing - just loop it on some streaming service!
*We will have even more music videos with half naked skanks shaking whatever they can shake in front of a camera, to make sure that horny teen boys watch the videos on repeat to give them a higher chart placing ("Blurred Lines", "Wrecking Ball" etc).
*Last year, there were 28 different number one songs in the UK. In the US: only 11! The reason: sales have very little to do with the US singles chart, it's all about radio play and streams. Therefore, the same bloody songs hang around for months, making the US charts boring beyond belief.
The Billboard charts changed about 15 years ago, making sales only count for 10-20 percent - the rest was airplay. Songs that topped the sales charts suddenly found themselves barely cracking the Hot 100, because some DJ's decided that the song didn't "fit in" to their "criteria" for their "target" audience! The same thing has been happening in the UK, with the controversial decisions over at Radio 1 for example (like the one above). The singles chart has so far been based purely on sales (not airplay etc). But with the introduction of streams into the chart, I fear it won't be long until radio play starts to be included as well (for all those five songs the playlist can take each time!).
There is a big difference in actually buying a song, sampling something out of curiosity or clicking on a YouTube link to check out the naked girl in some music video - a big difference! If the charts are supposed to reflect the type of music people actually like, they should monitor what people are BUYING!
There is a big difference in actually buying a song, sampling something out of curiosity or clicking on a YouTube link to check out the naked girl in some music video - a big difference! If the charts are supposed to reflect the type of music people actually like, they should monitor what people are BUYING!
3 comments:
WELL SAID!
The already pathetic and demeaned "chart" takes a further tumble into mediocrity and irrelevance. As if "the young" even bother with it, or the failing Radio 1 nowadays...
And what part of "excellence" does the ignorant and unelected "Radio Academy" actually understand?
I despair ever more... Jx
Radio 1 seems utterly desperate to remain relevant - by cutting out a large part of the artists people might actually WANT to hear on the radio!
As for the charts, they don't seem to matter much anymore in general - a shame really, I always enjoyed following them each week. I still do, but not with much excitement...
It is a sad state of affairs, to be sure. And remarkably, despite the best efforts of Radio 1 (which likes to think it "owns" the charts), the very type of artist they would consider "irrelevant" or whose audience is over 30 (crud from the X-Factor, a tune from an advert, Robbie Williams or Gary Barlow) is often the type of music that goes on to hit the top slot.
That type of music is often played on Radio 2, a station that has more listeners than any other in the UK, and whose listenership is generally more mature. Do the maths... Jx
Post a Comment