Official Singles Chart on 23/10/2015

Yeah but the 70s n 80s were even better n all.

i am a big fan...love them loads, but this single has no "take that" magic :-( i feel very sad to say that.

Could not agree with you more. Everything hangs around for ages. It's so boring. There's no churn. Plus when the number one song is no longer the best selling song of the week, it totally undermines the point of it all. Streaming is given way too much credit. Absolute farce as you say.

A justified rant. The current charts can not even be compared to those of the past. Most artists don't release physical CD singles now and people streaming have no need to even pay for a download so when you read of artists breaking records you have to ask yourself would they be doing so if the fans had to pay for the music? I doubt very much the songs being streamed millions of times would have sold millions on CD as they don't even translate into download sales.
Airplay is seemingly saturated with the same artists and sound-alikes on a loop. It's not only rock bands that are neglected. In my opinion there are some outstanding singer songwriters who have been overlooked who I feel given the opportunity, (via airplay), would appeal to the masses. Although they all have their own fans, Brandi Carlile, Duke Special, Horse McDonald, Jewel Kilcher, Amanda Ghost, Terra Naomi, Tina Arena, Daughtry, Simon Scardanelli, Richard Marx, Tim Mcgraw, Trisha Yearwood,Jennifer Rush and Clare Maguire are just a few who come to mind. Anyone else out there despairing at the state of the charts and lack of support for their favourite artists?

If it bothers you that much why not complain to the Official Chart Company? I kind of agree though.

Streams only count when they are paid for streams. Free streaming doesn't count towards the chart.

Good point about rock bands, you can tell the Charts company don't like rock bands. Look at all the big rock songs in the past three years that all had a chance of hitting 1.

Couldn't agree more with Wayne & Painmix - a shambolic state of affairs. The charts today are just a shadow of their former self and not representative in any way of the true popularity of a given song at a given time. I cannot believe the quality of songs getting to number one, many of them failing to sell more than 5,000 copies in a week. In the 70's/80's when the charts were truly representative, singles would have to sell millions just to get into the Top 10. And over the past year we have seen first-rate releases from the likes of Pink Floyd, David Gilmour, U2, The Eagles, Don Henley, Rod Stewart, Simply Red, Bon Jovi, Marc Almond and many other artists of their ilk and these singles don't even dent the Top 200 - it's a joke

Thass juss wot I think on ere.

Thass shockin juss shockin.

No number one in history has come anywhere near selling as few as 5,000 copies. In one of his weeks at number one, Justin Bieber's actual sales were below 20,000, but they were not even close to 5,000. As for the 1970s and '80s, I suggest you look at the list of million-selling singles. That will show you how wrong your assertion about that decade is.

Sorry? The OCC records sales and streams. They don't have any sort of filter to exclude songs they don't like. The simple fact is that rock bands don't sell many singles. By your logic, I should be blaming the Returning Officers for the fact that we have a Tory government.