Otter Posted July 1, 2017 Posted July 1, 2017 I like the intention behind the new rules but they're not well thought out. the 10week rule only works when you have a massive song like Despicito/One Dance which dominates right out the gate, but most songs from new artists take months to reach their peak and these are the tracks that are going to be hit the hardest.
Mat.91 Posted July 1, 2017 Posted July 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Navyofbadgals said: The U.K. Charts are ruining themselves SO stupid First Brexit, now this.
Pacaveli Posted July 1, 2017 Posted July 1, 2017 (edited) It's a very inaccurate rule. I mean; I can get 25 weeks, but not 10, though... The charts must focus on popularity of the songs, not on the temporary popularity, though. The longevity should be a part of all charts (yes, the whole 10 weeks on the chart don't mean longevity), because we shouldn't delete the x song from the x chart, only because it has damn longevity on the chart, though. The fact, that the x song is old and boring, because of its longevity, doesn't mean, that this song is unpopular, though... Edited July 1, 2017 by Pacaveli
bestfiction Posted July 1, 2017 Posted July 1, 2017 38 minutes ago, BlazingLovatic said: It doesn't make sense for them to be so opposed to the singles chart longevity, but let the albums chart do what it wants. The #6 album in the UK right now has charted for 224 weeks, #12 is at 158 weeks, #15 is at 259 weeks and #18 is at 199 weeks Well, albums IMO actually should have longetivity, BB has been always filled with the albums charting for 12345 weeks as well. Singles are released as the part of the promotional campaign, so when the campagn ends, I personally don't want to see these songs on the charts anymore.
DaenerysFenty Posted July 1, 2017 Posted July 1, 2017 Wild Thoughts coming for number 1 tragic rule though, and 10 weeks is not a long time
alexanderao Posted July 1, 2017 Posted July 1, 2017 8 minutes ago, bestfiction said: Well, albums IMO actually should have longetivity, BB has been always filled with the albums charting for 12345 weeks as well. Singles are released as the part of the promotional campaign, so when the campagn ends, I personally don't want to see these songs on the charts anymore. Well, just because you don't want to see them on the chart doesn't mean they shouldn't chart. Who or what is charting should never be a priority. The priority should be accuracy– and these new rules abandon that egregiously.
ATRL Moderator Samson Posted July 1, 2017 ATRL Moderator Posted July 1, 2017 (edited) wow, and I thought billboard was stubborn edit: omfg you know what this mean? mr brightside is OVER on the UK top 100! Edited July 1, 2017 by Yndda
PopThatCorn Posted July 1, 2017 Posted July 1, 2017 I'm interested to see how this shakes things up. Every time new rules are introduced people get upset but warm-up to them eventually. Every music chart has had major flaws in the past. Billboard is far from perfect. The Hot 100 didn't even allow songs to chart unless a physical single was released untill 1998. There's songs that spent multiple weeks at #1 on radio yet didn't even chart... Many 90s hits also didn't reach their full potential chart-wise since radio spins on R&B radio weren't even counted on the Hot 100 back in the day. No one seems to be upset about Billboard ripping "recurrent" songs off their chart after 20 weeks so I don't see an issue with the UK deciding to cut points after a certain number of weeks. 10 weeks seems far too short but again, majority of chart rules are annoying and flawed.
Hidden Posted July 1, 2017 Posted July 1, 2017 This is pretty stupid because if the charts try to reflect the most popular songs, why is there the need to get rid of the songs that are currently listened to?
bestfiction Posted July 1, 2017 Posted July 1, 2017 35 minutes ago, alexanderao said: Who or what is charting should never be a priority. The priority should be accuracy– and these new rules abandon that egregiously. The accuracy has been abandoned when they started to account streaming on the charts so who cares anyway
alexanderao Posted July 1, 2017 Posted July 1, 2017 37 minutes ago, bestfiction said: The accuracy has been abandoned when they started to account streaming on the charts so who cares anyway What a ludicrous statement.
Unbreakable Heaven Posted July 1, 2017 Posted July 1, 2017 These rules are so stupid, especially #2. What a foolish chart this will become.
ATRL Moderator Ace Reject Posted July 1, 2017 ATRL Moderator Posted July 1, 2017 3 hours ago, Brando said: Great change. Longevity in the modern era kills diversity. This is why they're doing it - to kill the stagnancy streaming has wrought. @Brinny Baby I can't see radio ever being a part of the UK's methodology, and I kinda like it that way?
Communion Posted July 1, 2017 Posted July 1, 2017 (edited) APPARENTLY if the songs sees increases after the 10-week mark, it can GO BACK to the 150:1 ratio? So: Week 11 - Decrease / 150:1 Week 12 - Decrease / 150:1 Week 13 - Decrease / 150:1 Week 14 - Decrease / 300:1 Week 15 - Decrease / 300:1 Week 16 - Increase / 150:1 This is going to make songs just hang around the #75-#100 region for ages. This is stupid and inconsistent. The anti-streaming brigade must stop. Edited July 1, 2017 by Communion
PhreshDiamond Posted July 1, 2017 Posted July 1, 2017 5 hours ago, istan4badgalriri said: Wtf ? This is ridiculous Might help stop Rihanna getting her 55th #2 peaking song imma not complain just yet
istan4badgalriri Posted July 1, 2017 Posted July 1, 2017 10 minutes ago, PhreshDiamond said: Might help stop Rihanna getting her 55th #2 peaking song imma not complain just yet I didn't think about that
Topmaster 2 Posted July 1, 2017 Posted July 1, 2017 6 hours ago, Brando said: Great change. Longevity in the modern era kills diversity. This
Before the Dawn Posted July 1, 2017 Posted July 1, 2017 That's so stupid At least if it was 20 weeks or so, but 10?
Recommended Posts