Official Singles Chart on 15/4/2016

Hi Pekka, all the major streaming channels report to the Official Chart - Spotify, Apple Music, Deezer, Napster, etc. We do not count YouTube plays.

I´ll stop complaining. Things are how they are and we just have to live with it, I get that!!

You're right there! I still think we should pay attention to sales/downloads but streaming has surged in popularity over the last couple of years. It's been popular with the public (particularly teenagers) so artists rely heavily on it these days. The only change I would like to see the OCC make is to introduce a 'recurrent rule' so that songs spend a maximum number of weeks in the chart to give new artists and comeback artists a better chance - like in the USA.

I personally was happy to read your comments and didn't see it as complaining but rather informing us of things. Don"t let others stop you from having your say. You at least did not come across aggressive-unlike some.

you should be removed from the chart as should streaming.

I get that some people don't like the way the charts work but that's no excuse to troll other people's opinions.

Not complaining. How were the charts in the beginning of 80´s? As I have told you or somewhere I used to follow the top 40 singles chart on Radio Luxembourg on the radio here in Finland (long wave). It was the time when Ultravox, Visage, Spandau Ballet, Heaven 17 and other groups came. Let´s say after punk era. (Thank God it ended) So how were charts back then? I don´t think that radio play was much of nothing back then. Just the singles / albums sold at the time. But if you know better I´m more than to happy to hear about charts back in those days. I so miss those days. And for ur information, don´t EVER move to Finland because the music they make here is still the same old s*****t as like......it always have been. I give U British people a standing applause for giving me such great music over the years!! Just waiting 4 the new DEPECHE MODE album. I´ve listened and loved their music since they ever started. I so wish U well!!!

That´s not a very nice thing to say to someone, is it? I wish we could be like friends here and be kind to one another. There is no need to be rude, is there?

the usa don't have a maximum number of weeks.. or if they do it is very high considering the fact WDYM lasted over 30 weeks on the chart.
the US charts are very stiff, should I say. so the song normally climbs up, peaks, stays around, falls a little then completely flops out. This is due to airplay. it always runs a month or so behind lol.

Yeah it's something like:
- No limit for songs in the Top 25
- 52 weeks maximum for songs below No.25
- 20 weeks maximum for songs below No.50
Airplay does indeed take a while to catch on so songs very rarely debut at No.1 in the US.

that makes sense for their chart considering the fact it's not very fluid. but having a limit on our charts would be pretty ridiculous. maybe like 60 weeks for below 50 to stop songs like Take Me To Church hanging around for little reason.
But nothing too abrupt, really. like some people were suggesting 26 weeks for the whole chart which is dumb.

Yeah 26 weeks is way too short, but 60 weeks seems sensible. It's just so other new artists and anyone making a comeback has a better chance of success. :)

Yeah, airplay, I don't mind the streaming personally as it's a way that people choose to enjoy/consume (call it what you will) music. But airplay, please let that horror never ever pollute our chart over here. Our chart is probably the most democratic in the world; if ever airplay counts I'll cease to care. I'd also be very much against a time limit on songs. They last as long as they last and they fade away only when people stop buying and playing them in sufficient number. Sounds fair to me.

I do agree with your point there. We have very little decision is what is played on the radio so it seems fair not to include it. Sales, downloads & streams (what the UK chart is currently based on) is a big part of how music fans enjoy singles... so I'm pleased that is how things are over here.
As for a time limit though I'm not entirely sure what I make of them. While it can get boring seeing the same songs in the Top 100 for so many weeks, they are often very good singles as well. :)

Well it hit number 6 at one point...

"Cheap Thrills" might not have gone to the top of the UK charts yet but it could next week and I hope it does.

As much as I would love "Cheap Thrills" to go number 1, unfortunately, "One Dance" is on track for a second week at the top spot, so I'm starting to doubt it's gonna happen. :(

Number 22 if you exclude streaming.

It's now up 2 no. 30 in the chart update

Sia is no.1 in Scotland

Megan trainer is up 12 spots! These charts are so different to last weeks.

She'll reach Top 10 next week, maybe number 8-7. By the way, is she even close to reach silver?

That is due to including streaming... It has completely and utterly crucified the charts!! Such a shame...

http://www.officialcharts.com/charts/singles-sales-chart/ Even on the sales chart (which is the old method), Rick barely made the top 40 and I have no clue what Roxette, Jennifer Lopez, or Pitbull songs you're talking about because they're nowhere to be seen. Sorry, but you can't blame streaming for this one!

Paul, I go through this chart but the real chart is the SALES chart. No streaming or that other s***t is included. Just the ones that has been bought or downloaded. CD´s, physical formats, vinyl, download´s, nothing else. That´s what I take as the REAL UK chart these days, both singles and albums. You do the same!! Just waiting for the new DEPECHE MODE CD that is due to be released in 2017. Let´s see how it does! And the new LADY GAGA too. But....it´s the SALES CHART!!! Remember please! Yours Pekka from Finland

Even so but the streaming should be taken off when putting charts together. What if I got my 1000 friends in Facebook to stream let´s say QUEEN / Bohemian Rhapsody, 24/7 for a week. I think that would make it clime up the single´s chart all over again. And that would not selling anything, just listening. How would you feel bout that? I take the SALES chart the real chart these days. Ur´s Pekka from Finland

So if I could make my 1000 facebook friends to stream QUEEN / Bohemian Rhapsody non-stop for a week so that would make1.816.216 streams per week. How many sold singles would that make? Or if I could do the same for QUEEN / Don´t Stop Me Now so it would be 3.054.545 streams per week. How many sold singles that equals? I know that this is just speculation but let´s pretend it would be real. Can anyone answer to me?

You do know the sales chart isn't immune to that kind of finagling, right? There was a whole stink about some awards show (in case you can't tell, I'm not British) that kept getting number ones, so a group of people decided to just latch onto a Rage Against the Machine song and buy it enough to get it to #1 instead. Similar things happened after some official died and trolls made "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" a hit again. Yes, it costs less for the end user, but if you were streaming a song that much, you'd hit enough ads to be giving the song's rightsholders significant ad revenue.

Also, mobilizing a group of people to try that sort of stunt isn't as easy as it sounds, so if you really want to prove that this system is bad, I openly challenge you to try.

here's a chart based on sales which calls itself 'the real chart'! not sure how accurate it is, but it does make interesting comparisons! http://therealchart.blogspot.co.uk/p/this-weeks-chart-real-chart-music.html

Based on what I've read occasionally in here, 1.000 streams equals to 1 sale. So even with 3.000.000 streams (=3.000 sales) one wouldn't get to the top 100. Besides only 10 streams of each song per user is taken into account. Therefore I don't think charts are that easy to manipulate now, and definitely not easier than during the non streaming era.
In my opinion now that streaming is taken into account the charts are more accurate on which songs are really popular. In the previous era one single could be bought by anyone during the first weeks of its release and than drop off the charts because noone would buy it anymore even though many people would still enjoy listening to it. Nowadays one can easily detect which songs the majority of people enjoys listening, which is the point of the charts afterall.

Sorry I meant 100 streams equals to 1 sale. So along with the fact that only limited streams per user is taken into account, manipulating the charts isn't that easy.

J-Lo has already reached her peak in the music industry, wait a while because Pitbull might take a while to make an impact, Roxette were popular in the 80's and 90's and won't appeal to teens, and Rick Astley's last top 40 song was in 1993 so it will be hard for him to make a comeback now.

I agree, all of Pitbull's songs post Timber have really flopped in the charts.

does it even share the methodology behind the calculations? all I see so far is the person showing their workspace, nothing more.

edit: I will never take this "real chart" seriously until I find their methodology(ies) found the methodology/ies. can't take this chart seriously; they include illegal downloads and don't include streams.

The streaming rules have a maximum number of plays per person per day of 10. So your thousand friends could all play Bohemian Rhapsody 24/7 every day for a week but each of their efforts would only count as 70 plays each for the whole week.
Multiply that by 1,000 and you get 70,000 streams. BUT 100 streams count as ONE sale so 70,000 / 100 = 700 sales. I doubt that would have any impact and it's certainly not worth the effort.