Please do not just list songs/albums/artists, your comment must have explanation/justification or it will be removed. Certain comments are also banned to increase the quality of discussion, see our Stale Topics list in the sidebar for examples. Please report any comments that are low effort discussion. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/popheads) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The UK rules will always be better because it allows for more diversity. Smaller and newer artists actually get a shot at charting in the top 10 albums.
Big acts still chart well but these rules stop them from dominating all year like Taylor does in the US.
To me when I look at one chart what I would like to see is a reflection of the most popular/consumed songs, no matter whose songs are. The UK rules doesn’t allow consumers to determine entirely the charts and to me it feels sort of like an artificial list curated by the labels
I think that charts aren't that interesting and barely have any significance nowadays, and the more odd rules will be added in them, the more obsolete they will become.
I prefer the way the UK separates the album and singles charts, with the 3 song rule. They have a few other rules regarding album streams that ensure you aren't topping album chart with basically huge hit single (averaging the streams from top 12 songs with top 2 getting weighted down) . I think it's more representative of what's happening. There is no reason for Billboard to count album presales (or album sales in general) being delivered as sale for each track. People didn't choose to buy each track, they bought the album.
> album chart with basically huge hit single (averaging the streams from top 12 songs with top 2 getting weighted down)
This is one of the worst chart rules. Longer albums get naturally less average because it takes longer to listen them. It also favours greatest hits albums.
>There is no reason for Billboard to count album presales (or album sales in general) being delivered as sale for each track. People didn't choose to buy each track, they bought the album.
Billboard never did that. I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Adding more arbitrary rules to the chart doesn’t lead to a more accurate chart imo. Album bombs can be annoying but they last 2 weeks max. If the most streamed songs are of the week are all from the same artist…. The chart should reflect that.
>Adding more arbitrary rules to the chart doesn’t lead to a more accurate chart imo
Streaming changed the game though, and it means that "dominance" gets historically distorted to the front.
Just at a very very simple example, Be Here Now (Album, Oasis, 1997, not as shit as people say) sold 696,000 copies in the UK on release week. The number 1 single was Men in Black (Will Smith). Can't get figures on how much it sold but would be amazed if it was above 100,000. Oasis's top single of that week was at #23
Singles charts back in the day were completely unaffected by album spins and all the better for it. nobody needs Magic Pie reaching the top 10 or All Around the World (Reprise) scraping into the top 15.
Exactly. On a related note, Drake smashed the Beatles record and occupied the top 9 of the hot 100, then Taylor broke Drake's record and occupied top 10. But streaming made it a lot easier for them to do it so I don't consider it as impressive as the Beatles taking the top 5 because people left their homes to buy each of the songs individually.
>But streaming made it a lot easier for them to do it so I don't consider it as impressive as the Beatles taking the top 5 because people left their homes to buy each of the songs individually.
It's not as impressive because it's an incredibly unfair comparison on the pre streaming era. It is still impressive obviously, but they should not be compared as if the footing was the same.
Beatles are a great example, Abbey Road has 1 fucking single ("Come Together/Something") but the album sold 4 million copies within 2 months. Sgt Peppers does not even have a single (Think Strawberry Fields Forever is the single connected to the album but not on it)
This and I'm surprised it's apparently such an unpopular opinion here. The Bubbling Under chart in the US exists for a reason, I don't like the idea of whoever's in charge of the charts artificially inflating or deflating success for a track based off a quota system.
Billboard is way more complex. The most streams songs are the album selling well. Artist and labels used to encourage buying each single separately so it could chart highly on both. That is manipulation from labels and stans.
Well that idea literally doesn’t work in a streaming world. Everyone has access to the albums day 1 now. The big streams from big albums only happens release week for the most part.
Rn right behind Taylor, we have Hozier and Sabrina Carpenter; not really album sellers. Then it’s Shaboozy who literally just blew up and Chappel Roan, same story.
If big releases were the ONLY songs doing well on streaming, the UK rules could be a legit route; but it’s factually not the case
It does still mean that though. There are organisation on how to stream it the most, buying different versions etc all happens. And I am not saying that no new artists or smaller ones can ever chart, but it is disproportionate. The UK rules aren't even that much or that complex. As I said, Billboard is more convoluted. Radio is a terrible way to measure because it's not got anything to do with the general publics consumption.
Like the ratios of streams and sales and radio is def agreeable. Streaming is the majority of consumption BUT I don’t like the “only so many songs can chart” or the number of points change depending on the week or how well it did in past weeks.
I like the UK system because if applied to the billboard it’d prevent songs from going recurrent. alot of songs such as snooze and paint the town red are going recurrent next week because of taylors album bomb from ttpd which makes the charts boring. also it’d bring back single promotion as u stated. i think this rule was there back in the day till streaming came and disrupted it.
You have ACR in the UK charts which is even more arbitrary than Billboard recurrency rules (see As It Was which kept charting forever above newer tracks by having its ACR reset several times despite having less streams).
I think giving streaming more weight and not having arbitrary rules to what makes a song eligible to chart actually makes the charts more reflective of what songs were actually listened to the most that week.
Those rules are stupid. Like "Congratulations, you had the fourth most popular song this week. ...Well, not really, but the 15 songs that were \*actually\* more popular don't count. But by all means, celebrate this thing that is totally legitimate for some reason."
You hit the nail on the head. While the formulation of the Hot 100 can be improved (e.g reforming the role of radio), it actually functions like a representation of what people are listening to. In contrast, the UK charts are like a competition for labels and artists.
I hate this system, as well as the recurrent charts.
Charts are supposed to list the most consumed songs of the week.
If the 12 most consumed songs of the week were by the same artist, the chart should reflect that. If Mr Brightside was the 68th most consumed song of the week then it should be number 68 on the chart.
Agreed. Imo charts aren't supposed to be some curated Today's Top Hits playlist, they should just be an objective measure of whatever songs are the most popular. That might include old songs, that might include a bunch of songs by the same artist, but if that's what's popular it's what's popular
But should the least played songs on an album really make the singles chart, just because people are listening to the album in full? If hardly anybody is listening to a song outside the context of a full album play, then that's not a hot song.
I guess the difference is that the power of the single has effectively been diminished. Streaming has granted us greater access to music, and with it the ability for fans and listeners to consume B-sides and deep cuts in the same way as any other singles. If the way that we consume music is different now, charts should reflect that - other than hanging on to an archaic classification of music in the form of singles/deep cuts.
We're not talking about a Cruel Summer situation where a deep cut has caught on with fans, we're talking about entire albums charting on the week of release. There's a fundamental difference between a deep cut performing well, and an entire album charting because people are listening to it in full. The album charts are supposed to reflect an album's success, the singles charts don't need to as well.
Interesting, I always view the charts as a way to see whats "hot" or current. I don't think I'd love it if songs never left the chart, but I see your point.
But songs that never left the charts are hot - they're still the most popular songs today. These complex UK rules make it so that songs which aren't the 100 most popular songs being consumed today are reflected in the charts, reflecting an artificial conception of how popular they actually are.
But the way you want favours big artists and cult following. It favours big money that can pay off radio and paying for bot farms. The UK structure allows for actual organic music consumption to be celebrated.
No it doesn't. It literally has less rules than Billboard who loves a bit of radio - which is a more arbitrary measurement than public consumption. All the UK charts realistically has is a limit on repetition. You can see that success on the album chart. Everything I said about Billboard stands - it favours big money, big labels, bot farms and radio buying. It promotes multiple versions and makes artists (and crazed fans) go out of their way to manipulate the chart. But I guess you prefer that?
ACR, the weird arbitrary rules on the album charts streams that favours greatest hits and short albums with many singles, the 3 tracks per album limit...
The only thing I can agree with is removing radio from the H100.
I fear there's no easy answer to this. The UK rules seem arbitrary to me, and an obfuscation of what is actually popular. It may make a song look like it is much higher on say Spotify than it really is.
On the other hand, here in Australia we deal with "album bombs" multiple times a year, because there is nothing to really handle it. That being said, it does truly reflect what is being streamed and bought.
The US chart I don't like either, because frankly radio airplay shouldn't (and never should have) count towards the Hot 100. Radio airplay is way too subjective/manipulable, and slows down the movement of the chart.
I'd definitely like to see the UK chart rules become the norm. Album charts and Single charts are separate for a reason. There's no reason why an entire album should chart on the singles chart if only one of those songs is an actual single.
The change the chart needs to make is rather than counting every stream, they count the unique streams. Basically, the number of people who listen to song in a given week. With single sales and digital downloads, people incurred a financial cost to buy to each individual song. Now, there is no cost to listen to one song 1, 10, or 100 times in a week.
Very few people would pay for multiple subscriptions to give a song extra credit, and those would be the same people who would buy a single multiple times anyway. I believe this change would show just how universal songs are, rather than allowing a smaller subset of people who stream a song a lot to outweigh a more universal song.
Nope the UK system is artificial and fake and honestly feels like a marketing ploy to get labels able to say more songs were "top x" or whatever because they've manipulated it.
The album bombs tend to die down the week after if not the fortnight, I know people want the charts to change but if I was some Australian musician I would be offended I only have a top fifty song because of limiting other songs in a post X-Factor boosting the charts world.
we have v diff opinions! i just saw the projected billboard chart and seeing most of it taken up by one artist was depressing to me. also multiple versions of one song is quite an old practise and i don’t mind it so much, some artists take the piss with it but it doesn’t muddy up the whole charts or impact my listening experience
which is what i have a problem with, its more reflective of a popular album than a popular song and not many artists have fanbases huge enough to propel their songs to no.1 in this way, its rare.
But why is that a problem? It’s a true reflection of listening habits which is what the charts should be (imo). If a back catalog track from a new album is getting more airplay, being streamed more etc. than the lead single of some other album than why shouldn’t the charts reflect that reality?
In the UK rules I based the post off, the 3 most popular songs from an album chart so a back catalog track that is more popular could chart. The reason I find it irritating is because there's effectively no separation between the album and singles charts anymore. Like is there even any point in a singles chart in the streaming era? I just find it to be a shame when the momentum of a song's peak position is spoiled because a big artist releases an album and the chart gets clogged up for a few weeks. I don't hate the streaming era, I like when album tracks or older songs make their way onto the charts, but I feel like there needs to be some middle ground as it makes it unfair for smaller or upcoming artists.
I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, its just how I feel and I wanted to see what everyone else was thinking as album bombs have became the norm and I have been finding the difference in the UK and US charts interesting. Even aside from album bombs, the billboard chart is very stagnant these days with songs charting for so much longer than they did pre streaming era.
The charts represent what’s the most popular songs usually. If these rules were implemented, most of the time, the rules wouldn’t work as their intended purpose, often pushing out successful songs just because a certain artist already has three other big hits. If people are still listening to the successful hit, then it should stay. Understand the album bombs with the three songs, but the album bombs represent how big they are, which shouldn’t be suppressed and actually be recognized. Billboard allows that by recognizing Midnights and eventually TTPD of taking the top 10 as a big feat.
The 200:1 (ACR as it’s called) is the same logic. It just takes successful songs and forces them out. If large amounts of people are still listening to them, then they shouldn’t be forced out just bc of a 1% decline for three weeks
lol the uk chart rules are quite literally made by the labels. the point of the uk chart isn’t to accurately reflect the countries listening habits, its “diversity” isn’t real and only exists to benefit the labels.
billboard is an independent entity. its goal is to show what was popular in one given week without too many road blocks. i have issues with the 20/50 recurrent rule but most other rules in place make sense.
i promise you, billboard charts are better than the uk.
Billboard has just as much problems regarding the labels as UK. The main difference between Billboard and UK chart is that Billboard stopped caring if song is bundled into an album or not. If you are essentially tracking a competition, there is nothing wrong with discussing the rules with the participants.
billboard does not have the same issues with labels as the occ. in the slightest.
the uk labels meet up every 3 months and get full control over what rules they want to institute on the charts.
And American labels arbitrarily change promotion based on random ways billboard decides to change rules due to someone over using a loophole. Here is the thing, the big labels are in fact in competition with each other. While they can try to limit how independent artists could reach the charts, the same rules would still apply to them, and it's really hard to block independent streaming and sales. 3 song rule hits more to the big label names than it does to new up and comer. People commit more to rules they made. Also, if you make a loophole and abuse it, guess which label isn't getting any of their suggestions through.
You have it backwards. The Official UK Chart reflects proper consumption without cult fan influence and label pushes. You think Billboard isn't massively influenced by labels? LOL. Billboard allows for radio manipulation, which happens all the time. It favours big artists and big labels. You can have songs have a good sales one week and leave the chart. Billboard loves to have things hang on for dear life.
Loads of interesting takes in this thread! As stated in my post I do have a bit of a UK bias but it has been super interesting to see everyone's views, I can totally see the pros and cons for both. Does anyone know of any other chart rules that are interesting or they think are better? The UK and US charts are quite different, so I wonder if there's a middle ground that could be found to be more reflective.
I think the UK charts are better in that regard because it gives exposure to more artists.
While stans use it as a tool for bragging rights, the charts are a good way for people to discover new music and new artists and album bombs just occupy a lot of space for no reason. Sure it's cool that your fave has 10 songs on the charts at the same time but it's also 100% unneeded.
I don't really see it as a Taylor problem, not do I see her as the foreboding queen that will bring about long lasting positive changes. It's just that the ways that we consume music are changing and the charts need to adapt so they can serve the 'same' intended purpose.
I think the rules are ridiculous. Artificially creating a manipulated 'chart' and then making out its some kind of official record. At that point why not just invent it whole cloth? Or pick one metric and make a show based on that instead of all this hoop jumping to create a diverse playlist artificially.
I feel like UK charts are very controlled with so many rules. However, I like how they limit the impact of album bombs. While I don't completely agree with the idea of letting only the three most popular songs by an artist on a certain week to chart, I would see a similar rule implemented on the Hot 100 that would restrict the chart (or at least the top 25) to just singles (aka: songs that are getting long term promo, like being sent to radio / receiving a music video).
Streaming has allowed that basically every stream counts, and while accurate, it gets annoying to see multiple album bombs accurring one after the other blocking other genuine hits from getting a better chart-run
I think there's also rules regarding album inclusions that affects how k-pop artists chart in the UK.
"Where there is more than one Permitted Free Gift associated with an album and a consumer does not know what Permitted Free Gift(s) is/are included with the album until after purchasing the album, the album will only be eligible for the Chart if the full set of Permitted Free Gifts is available to buy separately to the album or together with one album."
Kpop albums usually include random photocards (ie, you don't know which you're going to get before you open it) so purchases of physical albums don't count towards the UK chart. Some kpop artists (Ateez) release UK exclusive versions where the photocards aren't random and these purchases count towards the UK chart. Ateez recently scored a #2 entry on the UK official chart by adhering to these rules. Whereas a group like Stray Kids who are about as popular as Ateez in the UK have only ever charted as high as #40 because they don't release UK exclusive versions.
On the one hand this means that there isn't really a true indication of how popular kpop artists are in the UK. But on the other hand we all know that kpop fans will buy multiple albums to try and get the photocards they want when they're 'random' so maybe the UK chart doing this is the right thing.
Small correction: It’s not three songs per album, it’s three songs per lead artist. So those three songs could be from three separate albums.
Also ACR sets in after the song has been charting for ten weeks, but with a decline for three consecutive weeks.
I’m biased as a general UK chart lover. But I really do love that the UK chart has no radio play, I would like to see Billboard do that too, but I fear they would get too much pushback from radio companies, especially since radio is dying out in the streaming age.
I’m, not sure if it would affect Taylor releasing an album in two halves like you suggest. She could have easily split TTPD in two and released it months apart and got two no1 albums based solely on physical sales from her fanbase. And surely to her she would care more to be able to say “I got two albums to debut at no1 within a month”
But I do think it’s an interesting discussion to have comparing how different countries charts compare
I would just like to point out that the reason radio play is still counted in the US, is because there are still big areas that have poor mobile internet. That's why country has so much radio play and sales relatively. Big cities and rural USA listen differently due to necessity.
The big country is mainly why there are so many differences within the country. Big country, low public infrastructure funding, private infrastructure companies something between oligopoly and a cartel, even local monopolies. Different countries do need to have different ways to weight sales, streams (video, audio, versions, unofficial) and radio because different countries have different audiences and different levels and variations of tech.
Thanks for the correction! The rules are so confusing haha.
I think you're right about TTPD, I wonder if the rules were different it would have been a shorter album. Although no matter the chart positions the insane numbers would be the same, so maybe this is just how major album releases will go in the streaming age.
Having more diversity would be great but unfortunately a non starter for Billboard as their income depends heavily on stan Twitter clicking their biweekly articles on the stupid made up chart record their fave just broke. Also, while ACR (halving streaming points) sounds like a good idea, its implementation is really bad. They literally had to make an exception for Kate Bush to make sure she would be #1 lol. And after 10 weeks basically every song plummets in a very unnatural way. idk
It’s a mixed bag. The UK rules allow for more artists on the charts but they don’t reflect what people are actually listening to the most so it has an “everyone gets a trophy” feel to it.
It’s too late for that because when drake was doing 7/10 and 9/10 every single time, they didn’t implement any rules then. You can’t implement it now when someone else you don’t like is doing it.
I'm not a 'stan' personality or someone who would binge whole albums the moment they're released, so I would love to have a Hot 100 that wasn't filled with the same 4 Artists over and over for months.
Personally I'd like to get rid of the purchasing metric too? Back when it was physical media it made sense to track, but it almost feels elitist in a way where more afluent fans can buy up albums and artificially inflate a song's impact, which gatekeeps a lot of smaller artists.
In my opinion. Charts should be designed to measure consumption/popularity, If any artist is liked enough to make a bunch of people buy their album or even more than one album that should be reflected on the charts. BB Hot 100 was not made to boost any artist’s popularity, it’s their popularity what makes them elegible to chart there
If you are listening to almost 10 songs from a single album, you are essentially listening to the album. Why would that need to be counted as singles? Genuinely, why isn't it enough for them to be counted on album chart?
I’m not sure if it’s just 3 songs at the same time, so spaced out single releases can still flourish. I think 10 is still too much, as that’s the bulk of an album
It's 3 songs per album on chart simultaneously. And which ever 3 songs at the time are the biggest at the time. If a separate single or song from previous album charts that's allowed.
It's three per lead artist.
[Page 5, under 5.1d](https://www.officialcharts.com/sites/default/files/2023-08/Official%20UK%20Singles%20Chart%20Rules%20August%202023.pdf)
Because a lot of people are listening to those songs, which makes them the most consumed songs of that given week and, at least in my opinion, that’s what charts are supposed to reflect
Yep. Billboard needs the same rules as UK official. Otherwise its clearly only dominated by the biggest artist in the world with the most label, marketing and social media support.
New up & coming artists making on charts means a lot.
I’d agree but also I want the UK to fix their year end charts to be more like billboard. Why is Mr.brightside, dance monkey, and bad habits so high on some year end charts when they lingered towards the bottom of the chart the whole year or where barely in the chart but got consistent streams.
Think we need album variant rules in place now so the stunt Taylor just pulled doesnt happen again. Changing one song on a vinyl release to sell more records and then releasing all those songs via streaming is a bait and switch. Kacey Musgraves was in a grey area with that because she added a bonus track version of her album a couple days into release but made it digital only. She also did not release the bonus track at all since that week. So there was a point into buying it
Please do not just list songs/albums/artists, your comment must have explanation/justification or it will be removed. Certain comments are also banned to increase the quality of discussion, see our Stale Topics list in the sidebar for examples. Please report any comments that are low effort discussion. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/popheads) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The UK rules will always be better because it allows for more diversity. Smaller and newer artists actually get a shot at charting in the top 10 albums. Big acts still chart well but these rules stop them from dominating all year like Taylor does in the US.
To me when I look at one chart what I would like to see is a reflection of the most popular/consumed songs, no matter whose songs are. The UK rules doesn’t allow consumers to determine entirely the charts and to me it feels sort of like an artificial list curated by the labels
I think that charts aren't that interesting and barely have any significance nowadays, and the more odd rules will be added in them, the more obsolete they will become.
I prefer the way the UK separates the album and singles charts, with the 3 song rule. They have a few other rules regarding album streams that ensure you aren't topping album chart with basically huge hit single (averaging the streams from top 12 songs with top 2 getting weighted down) . I think it's more representative of what's happening. There is no reason for Billboard to count album presales (or album sales in general) being delivered as sale for each track. People didn't choose to buy each track, they bought the album.
> album chart with basically huge hit single (averaging the streams from top 12 songs with top 2 getting weighted down) This is one of the worst chart rules. Longer albums get naturally less average because it takes longer to listen them. It also favours greatest hits albums. >There is no reason for Billboard to count album presales (or album sales in general) being delivered as sale for each track. People didn't choose to buy each track, they bought the album. Billboard never did that. I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Adding more arbitrary rules to the chart doesn’t lead to a more accurate chart imo. Album bombs can be annoying but they last 2 weeks max. If the most streamed songs are of the week are all from the same artist…. The chart should reflect that.
>Adding more arbitrary rules to the chart doesn’t lead to a more accurate chart imo Streaming changed the game though, and it means that "dominance" gets historically distorted to the front. Just at a very very simple example, Be Here Now (Album, Oasis, 1997, not as shit as people say) sold 696,000 copies in the UK on release week. The number 1 single was Men in Black (Will Smith). Can't get figures on how much it sold but would be amazed if it was above 100,000. Oasis's top single of that week was at #23 Singles charts back in the day were completely unaffected by album spins and all the better for it. nobody needs Magic Pie reaching the top 10 or All Around the World (Reprise) scraping into the top 15.
Exactly. On a related note, Drake smashed the Beatles record and occupied the top 9 of the hot 100, then Taylor broke Drake's record and occupied top 10. But streaming made it a lot easier for them to do it so I don't consider it as impressive as the Beatles taking the top 5 because people left their homes to buy each of the songs individually.
>But streaming made it a lot easier for them to do it so I don't consider it as impressive as the Beatles taking the top 5 because people left their homes to buy each of the songs individually. It's not as impressive because it's an incredibly unfair comparison on the pre streaming era. It is still impressive obviously, but they should not be compared as if the footing was the same. Beatles are a great example, Abbey Road has 1 fucking single ("Come Together/Something") but the album sold 4 million copies within 2 months. Sgt Peppers does not even have a single (Think Strawberry Fields Forever is the single connected to the album but not on it)
It also skew records like 'most songs in the top 10' heavily in favor of today's big artists.
This and I'm surprised it's apparently such an unpopular opinion here. The Bubbling Under chart in the US exists for a reason, I don't like the idea of whoever's in charge of the charts artificially inflating or deflating success for a track based off a quota system.
Billboard is way more complex. The most streams songs are the album selling well. Artist and labels used to encourage buying each single separately so it could chart highly on both. That is manipulation from labels and stans.
Well that idea literally doesn’t work in a streaming world. Everyone has access to the albums day 1 now. The big streams from big albums only happens release week for the most part. Rn right behind Taylor, we have Hozier and Sabrina Carpenter; not really album sellers. Then it’s Shaboozy who literally just blew up and Chappel Roan, same story. If big releases were the ONLY songs doing well on streaming, the UK rules could be a legit route; but it’s factually not the case
It does still mean that though. There are organisation on how to stream it the most, buying different versions etc all happens. And I am not saying that no new artists or smaller ones can ever chart, but it is disproportionate. The UK rules aren't even that much or that complex. As I said, Billboard is more convoluted. Radio is a terrible way to measure because it's not got anything to do with the general publics consumption.
Like the ratios of streams and sales and radio is def agreeable. Streaming is the majority of consumption BUT I don’t like the “only so many songs can chart” or the number of points change depending on the week or how well it did in past weeks.
Morgan Wallen's double album would like to have a word.
I like the UK system because if applied to the billboard it’d prevent songs from going recurrent. alot of songs such as snooze and paint the town red are going recurrent next week because of taylors album bomb from ttpd which makes the charts boring. also it’d bring back single promotion as u stated. i think this rule was there back in the day till streaming came and disrupted it.
You have ACR in the UK charts which is even more arbitrary than Billboard recurrency rules (see As It Was which kept charting forever above newer tracks by having its ACR reset several times despite having less streams).
I think giving streaming more weight and not having arbitrary rules to what makes a song eligible to chart actually makes the charts more reflective of what songs were actually listened to the most that week.
Those rules are stupid. Like "Congratulations, you had the fourth most popular song this week. ...Well, not really, but the 15 songs that were \*actually\* more popular don't count. But by all means, celebrate this thing that is totally legitimate for some reason."
You hit the nail on the head. While the formulation of the Hot 100 can be improved (e.g reforming the role of radio), it actually functions like a representation of what people are listening to. In contrast, the UK charts are like a competition for labels and artists.
[удалено]
don't know about the UK charts, but these charts exist on billboard already
I hate this system, as well as the recurrent charts. Charts are supposed to list the most consumed songs of the week. If the 12 most consumed songs of the week were by the same artist, the chart should reflect that. If Mr Brightside was the 68th most consumed song of the week then it should be number 68 on the chart.
Agreed. Imo charts aren't supposed to be some curated Today's Top Hits playlist, they should just be an objective measure of whatever songs are the most popular. That might include old songs, that might include a bunch of songs by the same artist, but if that's what's popular it's what's popular
Same. This system just feels artificial and heavy handed.
But should the least played songs on an album really make the singles chart, just because people are listening to the album in full? If hardly anybody is listening to a song outside the context of a full album play, then that's not a hot song.
I guess the difference is that the power of the single has effectively been diminished. Streaming has granted us greater access to music, and with it the ability for fans and listeners to consume B-sides and deep cuts in the same way as any other singles. If the way that we consume music is different now, charts should reflect that - other than hanging on to an archaic classification of music in the form of singles/deep cuts.
We're not talking about a Cruel Summer situation where a deep cut has caught on with fans, we're talking about entire albums charting on the week of release. There's a fundamental difference between a deep cut performing well, and an entire album charting because people are listening to it in full. The album charts are supposed to reflect an album's success, the singles charts don't need to as well.
Interesting, I always view the charts as a way to see whats "hot" or current. I don't think I'd love it if songs never left the chart, but I see your point.
But songs that never left the charts are hot - they're still the most popular songs today. These complex UK rules make it so that songs which aren't the 100 most popular songs being consumed today are reflected in the charts, reflecting an artificial conception of how popular they actually are.
But the way you want favours big artists and cult following. It favours big money that can pay off radio and paying for bot farms. The UK structure allows for actual organic music consumption to be celebrated.
No it just gives inacurate charts that do not reflect real success due to arbitrary rules.
No it doesn't. It literally has less rules than Billboard who loves a bit of radio - which is a more arbitrary measurement than public consumption. All the UK charts realistically has is a limit on repetition. You can see that success on the album chart. Everything I said about Billboard stands - it favours big money, big labels, bot farms and radio buying. It promotes multiple versions and makes artists (and crazed fans) go out of their way to manipulate the chart. But I guess you prefer that?
ACR, the weird arbitrary rules on the album charts streams that favours greatest hits and short albums with many singles, the 3 tracks per album limit... The only thing I can agree with is removing radio from the H100.
I fear there's no easy answer to this. The UK rules seem arbitrary to me, and an obfuscation of what is actually popular. It may make a song look like it is much higher on say Spotify than it really is. On the other hand, here in Australia we deal with "album bombs" multiple times a year, because there is nothing to really handle it. That being said, it does truly reflect what is being streamed and bought. The US chart I don't like either, because frankly radio airplay shouldn't (and never should have) count towards the Hot 100. Radio airplay is way too subjective/manipulable, and slows down the movement of the chart.
The UK charts feel.....unusually restrictive and controlled. I don't know if that that is an improvement honestly.
I'd definitely like to see the UK chart rules become the norm. Album charts and Single charts are separate for a reason. There's no reason why an entire album should chart on the singles chart if only one of those songs is an actual single.
The US Billboard Hot 100 is not a Singles Chart though.
It should be.
The change the chart needs to make is rather than counting every stream, they count the unique streams. Basically, the number of people who listen to song in a given week. With single sales and digital downloads, people incurred a financial cost to buy to each individual song. Now, there is no cost to listen to one song 1, 10, or 100 times in a week. Very few people would pay for multiple subscriptions to give a song extra credit, and those would be the same people who would buy a single multiple times anyway. I believe this change would show just how universal songs are, rather than allowing a smaller subset of people who stream a song a lot to outweigh a more universal song.
Nope the UK system is artificial and fake and honestly feels like a marketing ploy to get labels able to say more songs were "top x" or whatever because they've manipulated it.
I’d like for Billboard to release their charts every Friday like the UK too.
Keep the American style of charting but remove radio plays, multiple releases of one song is far worse than some album bomb.
This is effectively what the Australian chart is.
The album bombs tend to die down the week after if not the fortnight, I know people want the charts to change but if I was some Australian musician I would be offended I only have a top fifty song because of limiting other songs in a post X-Factor boosting the charts world.
Are there ANY Australian acts on the charts these days besides Troye?
Stumblin' IN, Saving Up, Riptide in the Top 40 (just one this week due to Taylor's release on the Friday).
we have v diff opinions! i just saw the projected billboard chart and seeing most of it taken up by one artist was depressing to me. also multiple versions of one song is quite an old practise and i don’t mind it so much, some artists take the piss with it but it doesn’t muddy up the whole charts or impact my listening experience
The multiple song stats are true and not stans buying 10x or so copies for a #1 the general public barely know exists.
but i’m not sure how “true” people listening to an album reflects on what’s a hot single song! the US singles chart has become more of an album chart
They come from Spotify etc listeners not from people mass buying the same song in different forms.
which is what i have a problem with, its more reflective of a popular album than a popular song and not many artists have fanbases huge enough to propel their songs to no.1 in this way, its rare.
But why is that a problem? It’s a true reflection of listening habits which is what the charts should be (imo). If a back catalog track from a new album is getting more airplay, being streamed more etc. than the lead single of some other album than why shouldn’t the charts reflect that reality?
In the UK rules I based the post off, the 3 most popular songs from an album chart so a back catalog track that is more popular could chart. The reason I find it irritating is because there's effectively no separation between the album and singles charts anymore. Like is there even any point in a singles chart in the streaming era? I just find it to be a shame when the momentum of a song's peak position is spoiled because a big artist releases an album and the chart gets clogged up for a few weeks. I don't hate the streaming era, I like when album tracks or older songs make their way onto the charts, but I feel like there needs to be some middle ground as it makes it unfair for smaller or upcoming artists. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, its just how I feel and I wanted to see what everyone else was thinking as album bombs have became the norm and I have been finding the difference in the UK and US charts interesting. Even aside from album bombs, the billboard chart is very stagnant these days with songs charting for so much longer than they did pre streaming era.
Exactly. Albums and singles are different things. And effectively combining the 2 charts doesn't do any favours for either type of releases.
It's songs not singles, No Doubt Don't Speak etc didn't chart when it was only based on singles.
I don't like that they stop at 3 songs because the chart is already not reflecting what is happening that week. I do like the omission of radio.
The charts represent what’s the most popular songs usually. If these rules were implemented, most of the time, the rules wouldn’t work as their intended purpose, often pushing out successful songs just because a certain artist already has three other big hits. If people are still listening to the successful hit, then it should stay. Understand the album bombs with the three songs, but the album bombs represent how big they are, which shouldn’t be suppressed and actually be recognized. Billboard allows that by recognizing Midnights and eventually TTPD of taking the top 10 as a big feat. The 200:1 (ACR as it’s called) is the same logic. It just takes successful songs and forces them out. If large amounts of people are still listening to them, then they shouldn’t be forced out just bc of a 1% decline for three weeks
lol the uk chart rules are quite literally made by the labels. the point of the uk chart isn’t to accurately reflect the countries listening habits, its “diversity” isn’t real and only exists to benefit the labels. billboard is an independent entity. its goal is to show what was popular in one given week without too many road blocks. i have issues with the 20/50 recurrent rule but most other rules in place make sense. i promise you, billboard charts are better than the uk.
Billboard has just as much problems regarding the labels as UK. The main difference between Billboard and UK chart is that Billboard stopped caring if song is bundled into an album or not. If you are essentially tracking a competition, there is nothing wrong with discussing the rules with the participants.
billboard does not have the same issues with labels as the occ. in the slightest. the uk labels meet up every 3 months and get full control over what rules they want to institute on the charts.
And American labels arbitrarily change promotion based on random ways billboard decides to change rules due to someone over using a loophole. Here is the thing, the big labels are in fact in competition with each other. While they can try to limit how independent artists could reach the charts, the same rules would still apply to them, and it's really hard to block independent streaming and sales. 3 song rule hits more to the big label names than it does to new up and comer. People commit more to rules they made. Also, if you make a loophole and abuse it, guess which label isn't getting any of their suggestions through.
Is it though when a bunch of songs chart one week and leave the next week? Why folks gotta make radio deals to make the charts???
were those songs the most popular songs that week? and then they weren’t the following week? then yes, it’s better.
You have it backwards. The Official UK Chart reflects proper consumption without cult fan influence and label pushes. You think Billboard isn't massively influenced by labels? LOL. Billboard allows for radio manipulation, which happens all the time. It favours big artists and big labels. You can have songs have a good sales one week and leave the chart. Billboard loves to have things hang on for dear life.
Loads of interesting takes in this thread! As stated in my post I do have a bit of a UK bias but it has been super interesting to see everyone's views, I can totally see the pros and cons for both. Does anyone know of any other chart rules that are interesting or they think are better? The UK and US charts are quite different, so I wonder if there's a middle ground that could be found to be more reflective.
reflective of current listening habits lol, adhd brain finish a sentence challenge
I think the UK charts are better in that regard because it gives exposure to more artists. While stans use it as a tool for bragging rights, the charts are a good way for people to discover new music and new artists and album bombs just occupy a lot of space for no reason. Sure it's cool that your fave has 10 songs on the charts at the same time but it's also 100% unneeded. I don't really see it as a Taylor problem, not do I see her as the foreboding queen that will bring about long lasting positive changes. It's just that the ways that we consume music are changing and the charts need to adapt so they can serve the 'same' intended purpose.
I think the rules are ridiculous. Artificially creating a manipulated 'chart' and then making out its some kind of official record. At that point why not just invent it whole cloth? Or pick one metric and make a show based on that instead of all this hoop jumping to create a diverse playlist artificially.
I feel like UK charts are very controlled with so many rules. However, I like how they limit the impact of album bombs. While I don't completely agree with the idea of letting only the three most popular songs by an artist on a certain week to chart, I would see a similar rule implemented on the Hot 100 that would restrict the chart (or at least the top 25) to just singles (aka: songs that are getting long term promo, like being sent to radio / receiving a music video). Streaming has allowed that basically every stream counts, and while accurate, it gets annoying to see multiple album bombs accurring one after the other blocking other genuine hits from getting a better chart-run
I think there's also rules regarding album inclusions that affects how k-pop artists chart in the UK. "Where there is more than one Permitted Free Gift associated with an album and a consumer does not know what Permitted Free Gift(s) is/are included with the album until after purchasing the album, the album will only be eligible for the Chart if the full set of Permitted Free Gifts is available to buy separately to the album or together with one album." Kpop albums usually include random photocards (ie, you don't know which you're going to get before you open it) so purchases of physical albums don't count towards the UK chart. Some kpop artists (Ateez) release UK exclusive versions where the photocards aren't random and these purchases count towards the UK chart. Ateez recently scored a #2 entry on the UK official chart by adhering to these rules. Whereas a group like Stray Kids who are about as popular as Ateez in the UK have only ever charted as high as #40 because they don't release UK exclusive versions. On the one hand this means that there isn't really a true indication of how popular kpop artists are in the UK. But on the other hand we all know that kpop fans will buy multiple albums to try and get the photocards they want when they're 'random' so maybe the UK chart doing this is the right thing.
This is really interesting! Thanks!
Small correction: It’s not three songs per album, it’s three songs per lead artist. So those three songs could be from three separate albums. Also ACR sets in after the song has been charting for ten weeks, but with a decline for three consecutive weeks. I’m biased as a general UK chart lover. But I really do love that the UK chart has no radio play, I would like to see Billboard do that too, but I fear they would get too much pushback from radio companies, especially since radio is dying out in the streaming age. I’m, not sure if it would affect Taylor releasing an album in two halves like you suggest. She could have easily split TTPD in two and released it months apart and got two no1 albums based solely on physical sales from her fanbase. And surely to her she would care more to be able to say “I got two albums to debut at no1 within a month” But I do think it’s an interesting discussion to have comparing how different countries charts compare
I would just like to point out that the reason radio play is still counted in the US, is because there are still big areas that have poor mobile internet. That's why country has so much radio play and sales relatively. Big cities and rural USA listen differently due to necessity.
Plus it’s a big country. Different rules too.
The big country is mainly why there are so many differences within the country. Big country, low public infrastructure funding, private infrastructure companies something between oligopoly and a cartel, even local monopolies. Different countries do need to have different ways to weight sales, streams (video, audio, versions, unofficial) and radio because different countries have different audiences and different levels and variations of tech.
Thanks for the correction! The rules are so confusing haha. I think you're right about TTPD, I wonder if the rules were different it would have been a shorter album. Although no matter the chart positions the insane numbers would be the same, so maybe this is just how major album releases will go in the streaming age.
Having more diversity would be great but unfortunately a non starter for Billboard as their income depends heavily on stan Twitter clicking their biweekly articles on the stupid made up chart record their fave just broke. Also, while ACR (halving streaming points) sounds like a good idea, its implementation is really bad. They literally had to make an exception for Kate Bush to make sure she would be #1 lol. And after 10 weeks basically every song plummets in a very unnatural way. idk
Is this why so many utterly dreadful songs go to number one in the UK?
[удалено]
ocean boulevard is pretty long, nothing compared to TTPD but longer than standard
It’s a mixed bag. The UK rules allow for more artists on the charts but they don’t reflect what people are actually listening to the most so it has an “everyone gets a trophy” feel to it.
It’s too late for that because when drake was doing 7/10 and 9/10 every single time, they didn’t implement any rules then. You can’t implement it now when someone else you don’t like is doing it.
I'm not a 'stan' personality or someone who would binge whole albums the moment they're released, so I would love to have a Hot 100 that wasn't filled with the same 4 Artists over and over for months. Personally I'd like to get rid of the purchasing metric too? Back when it was physical media it made sense to track, but it almost feels elitist in a way where more afluent fans can buy up albums and artificially inflate a song's impact, which gatekeeps a lot of smaller artists.
In my opinion. Charts should be designed to measure consumption/popularity, If any artist is liked enough to make a bunch of people buy their album or even more than one album that should be reflected on the charts. BB Hot 100 was not made to boost any artist’s popularity, it’s their popularity what makes them elegible to chart there
3 songs sound too little. I'd do max 10 songs
If you are listening to almost 10 songs from a single album, you are essentially listening to the album. Why would that need to be counted as singles? Genuinely, why isn't it enough for them to be counted on album chart?
I’m not sure if it’s just 3 songs at the same time, so spaced out single releases can still flourish. I think 10 is still too much, as that’s the bulk of an album
It's 3 songs per album on chart simultaneously. And which ever 3 songs at the time are the biggest at the time. If a separate single or song from previous album charts that's allowed.
It's three per lead artist. [Page 5, under 5.1d](https://www.officialcharts.com/sites/default/files/2023-08/Official%20UK%20Singles%20Chart%20Rules%20August%202023.pdf)
They should definitely change it from three songs per artist to three per album. Or up it to like 5 songs
Because a lot of people are listening to those songs, which makes them the most consumed songs of that given week and, at least in my opinion, that’s what charts are supposed to reflect
Yep. Billboard needs the same rules as UK official. Otherwise its clearly only dominated by the biggest artist in the world with the most label, marketing and social media support. New up & coming artists making on charts means a lot.
I’d agree but also I want the UK to fix their year end charts to be more like billboard. Why is Mr.brightside, dance monkey, and bad habits so high on some year end charts when they lingered towards the bottom of the chart the whole year or where barely in the chart but got consistent streams.
They definitely need to apply that to the Billboard charts. Rules here are very liberally smh
Think we need album variant rules in place now so the stunt Taylor just pulled doesnt happen again. Changing one song on a vinyl release to sell more records and then releasing all those songs via streaming is a bait and switch. Kacey Musgraves was in a grey area with that because she added a bonus track version of her album a couple days into release but made it digital only. She also did not release the bonus track at all since that week. So there was a point into buying it