Steps

General discussion | 1 topic per artist | Old music forums are in the "Archive" section at the bottom for further reference (read only)
User avatar
Jay
Mod
Posts: 68096
Joined: 28 Jun 2004, 02:32
Gender: Male
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Steps

Postby Jay » 14 Mar 2017, 05:38

Great to see that the tour is doing really well for them!

Scared of the Dark is midweek #11, but sadly I can see it falling to the bottom of the Top 30 for its Friday entry (best case scenario). Even if that ends up being the case, the fact it's more than likely going to make the Top 40 is far better than I'd ever have assumed a Steps comeback single would manage, in a chart so dominated by streaming data. It's just a shame that the fact it was #1 on iTunes for a little while doesn't mean much in chart terms these days.

When it comes to just downloads, they're currently the third best seller of the week!
Image
User avatar
schizophonic_spice
Posts: 41570
Joined: 28 Jun 2004, 02:32
Location: Scotland, UK

Re: Steps

Postby schizophonic_spice » 14 Mar 2017, 16:38

I'm glad there is going to be a music video for it. Light Up the World didn't really feel like a single to me without one.
Image
User avatar
pinkbecca12
Posts: 376
Joined: 15 Jul 2014, 10:10
Gender: Female
Country: Bahrain

Re: Steps

Postby pinkbecca12 » 15 Mar 2017, 09:47

anyone has a CD rip of Bittersweet?, its not available digitally or else I'd buy it.
Jamie
Posts: 22317
Joined: 08 Jul 2004, 18:36

Re: Steps

Postby Jamie » 15 Mar 2017, 19:00

#27 in the midweek :(
User avatar
addicted2you
Posts: 4033
Joined: 28 Oct 2004, 00:48
Gender: Male
Country: New_Zealand
Location: Auckland
Contact:

Re: Steps

Postby addicted2you » 16 Mar 2017, 06:55

Considering no live performances or video yet, #27 is good start. I think even All Saints peaked higher a few weeks after One Strike was released, so there is the possibility of climbing the charts.
Image
User avatar
Lorraine
Posts: 4170
Joined: 05 Jul 2004, 12:17
Gender: Female
Custom Title: Old Hollywood Spice
Country: United_Kingdom
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Steps

Postby Lorraine » 16 Mar 2017, 11:37

pinkbecca12 wrote:anyone has a CD rip of Bittersweet?, its not available digitally or else I'd buy it.



It was a B-side to the "Words Are Not Enough" Single. There's cheap copies on ebay :)
User avatar
pinkbecca12
Posts: 376
Joined: 15 Jul 2014, 10:10
Gender: Female
Country: Bahrain

Re: Steps

Postby pinkbecca12 » 16 Mar 2017, 12:38

Lorraine wrote:
pinkbecca12 wrote:anyone has a CD rip of Bittersweet?, its not available digitally or else I'd buy it.



It was a B-side to the "Words Are Not Enough" Single. There's cheap copies on ebay :)

I saw them but it's like I'll be paying 5 pounds for 1 song!, not worth it.
User avatar
Stas
Posts: 18163
Joined: 28 Jun 2004, 02:32
Gender: Male
Custom Title: straight forward
Country: Finland
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Contact:

Re: Steps

Postby Stas » 16 Mar 2017, 14:07

Jamie wrote:
felx wrote:I don't know who Steps are..... maybe if I would watch some of their 90s videos.....
but...this new song is so not my cup of tea....very Eurosong...and it is not a compliment

watched some of their videos.....and now I know why I don't know them..... :laugh:


ok....thanks for your opinion....bye....hope you enjoy....other things....instead of wasting your time....

in this thread.......


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Image
User avatar
Jay
Mod
Posts: 68096
Joined: 28 Jun 2004, 02:32
Gender: Male
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Steps

Postby Jay » 16 Mar 2017, 21:05

Not sure if this was posted before: http://www.musicweek.com/talent/read/st ... ong/067712

UK sales for three of their albums:

1,402,303 - Step One
1,291,588 - Steptacular
1,129,620 - Gold: Greatest Hits
Image
User avatar
SourSpice
Posts: 200
Joined: 11 May 2014, 01:09
Gender: Male
Country: United_Kingdom
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Steps

Postby SourSpice » 17 Mar 2017, 18:16

Scared Of The Dark has debuted at #37 in the UK.
User avatar
schizophonic_spice
Posts: 41570
Joined: 28 Jun 2004, 02:32
Location: Scotland, UK

Re: Steps

Postby schizophonic_spice » 17 Mar 2017, 23:24

At the very least it made top 40 and got played on radio.
Image
Jamie
Posts: 22317
Joined: 08 Jul 2004, 18:36

Re: Steps

Postby Jamie » 17 Mar 2017, 23:28

If it was just sales that counted, like it should be, they'd've charted at #7. That's how fucked up the chart is these days.
User avatar
Stas
Posts: 18163
Joined: 28 Jun 2004, 02:32
Gender: Male
Custom Title: straight forward
Country: Finland
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Contact:

Re: Steps

Postby Stas » 18 Mar 2017, 00:38

Instead we have 9 songs by Ed Sheeran in top 10 and 1 shitty collaboration by Coldplay and some band. :satan:
Image
User avatar
Jay
Mod
Posts: 68096
Joined: 28 Jun 2004, 02:32
Gender: Male
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Steps

Postby Jay » 18 Mar 2017, 00:42

Jamie wrote:If it was just sales that counted, like it should be, they'd've charted at #7. That's how fucked up the Ed Sheeran chart is these days.

</3
Image
User avatar
sammy01
Posts: 12424
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 15:30

Re: Steps

Postby sammy01 » 18 Mar 2017, 02:37

Oh god do we have to do this 'if streaming wasn't allowed my faves would chart higher' rubbish every time. Soon enough downloads will be a thing of the past, like cd single sales, so if you want a chart that has no relevance but your fave a few places higher then your priorities are sadly wrong.

These comments are basically exactly the same as when downloads took over the singles chart.

Steps did fine and #37 is great for them.
Follw me, you know you want to - https://twitter.com/Sammyb01
User avatar
Jay
Mod
Posts: 68096
Joined: 28 Jun 2004, 02:32
Gender: Male
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Steps

Postby Jay » 18 Mar 2017, 05:33

The singles chart is barely relevant in its current form imo. The attention the OCC has received from Ed Sheeran's domination in the singles chart has been largely negative, with a number of articles using it to highlight what a sorry state the chart is in these days. Which I think is true. Never before has the singles chart looked so meaningless. There's no real need for an admittedly popular album to also take over the singles chart concurrently. The fact Ed's album is #1 in the albums chart should be enough to demonstrate the success of said album, that's the appropriate place for it. I find it to be an incredibly flawed system that a stream of one his album tracks will not only count towards the album chart & the sales of 'Divide', but also to the singles chart for the track in its own right.

Some chart fans like to claim that there's never been a more accurate indication of what the most popular songs are these days, because of the inclusion of streaming. Does streaming honestly demonstrate genuine popularity? I don't believe it does, not completely. Nowadays the UK singles chart is largely made up of data that is created from the passive listening generated by Spotify users, which is thanks to spoon-fed curated playlists that they'll lazily play. For a lot of people it's pretty much a glorified radio station, but with an element of choice. But millions of people could be playing songs that they don't even particularly like simply because they're keeping a playlist playing while doing the cleaning, or while at a party. It's a pretty flawed way of determining apparent popularity.

At least when the chart was officially just sales, it was all relative - the fact that people actually chose to part with cash to buy a single. The most bought single was #1 and that was the case for over 60 years. Streaming muddies the waters by introducing the concept of "most listened to" into the chart, alongside sales. The way that streaming is incorporated is that 150 streams is supposedly equivalent to 1 sale based on revenue. I find this to have been problematical from its inception. I just don't think purchases & plays can be fairly compared to each other. To me they're completely different forms of consumption, and have wildly different "shelf lives". With streaming, a song that is continually listened to for months on end by millions of people, possibly even the same people over that extended period, in the process generating hundreds of thousands or even in excess of a million "equivalent sales units", is just not the same as people buying a download and then that is their one off contribution.

I'm sure the OCC will end up facing pressure from labels to get a better system in place for the singles chart. I'm also quite sure that major labels are likely to be fuming that Ed Sheeran is taking up so many places in the singles chart and is in a sense artificially pushing actual singles down the chart, simply because his popular album is being streamed a lot.

At the end of the day, we don't need a slew of album tracks reflected in the charts, do we? The clue is really in the name: singles chart. I don't care that certain chart fans argue the toss about the definition of a single having changed to the point that anything is a single these days, because that was never the original purpose of this chart. Who'd have wanted 12 Dido album tracks hogging the singles chart in 2003? Thank God this is only a recent thing, which I really hope can be rectified, in the aftermath of Ed ridiculously holding 9 of the Top 10 singles positions for 2 weeks in a row.

I've lost a lot of my enthusiasm for caring about the singles chart, it's become painfully slow moving with the same few songs dominating for months on end now by the usual suspects. Steps have managed to attain a position of #37 thanks to strong downloads & also because they weren't included in the most followed Spotify-created playlists such as Hot Hits UK to generate the required streams needed to place any higher. It's an actual miracle they've managed to make a dent in the Top 40 tbh. Every other song in the Top 40 had at least 10,000 streaming units added onto their overall weekly totals - Steps had less than 3,000 units.

To me it's far more impressive that they're the 7th best selling download of the week, with 14,000+ people parting with 99p for it, compared to *picks a random album track from Ed's album* 'Barcelona', which barely scraped over 2,000 downloads (#46 in the sales chart), but has streaming units that equate to almost 29,000 equivalent sales (#10 in the streaming chart) to achieve an overall position of #12.

Steps brand new single - #7 on sales, not Top 100 on streaming = #37 overall
Ed Sheeran random album track- #46 on sales, #10 on streaming = #12 overall

:/

I know that this post is very TL;DR and thanks for taking the time to read even if you don't share the same view. I haven't touched upon the subject in this level of detail on a forum before, partly because I find the subject to be massively frustrating. But anyway, that's my view on the matter, and Steps getting to #37 in a flawed chart is completely by the by. I'll personally be far more interested in the position achieved in the albums chart, which is thankfully still a chart that is majorly based on actual sales of physicals and downloads. That'll be a more accurate assessment of Steps' popularity with their new music imo. And the huge success of the tour certainly speaks for itself too. :inlove:
Image
User avatar
Stas
Posts: 18163
Joined: 28 Jun 2004, 02:32
Gender: Male
Custom Title: straight forward
Country: Finland
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Contact:

Re: Steps

Postby Stas » 18 Mar 2017, 10:25

Jay wrote:The singles chart is barely relevant in its current form imo. The attention the OCC has received from Ed Sheeran's domination in the singles chart has been largely negative, with a number of articles using it to highlight what a sorry state the chart is in these days. Which I think is true. Never before has the singles chart looked so meaningless. There's no real need for an admittedly popular album to also take over the singles chart concurrently. The fact Ed's album is #1 in the albums chart should be enough to demonstrate the success of said album, that's the appropriate place for it. I find it to be an incredibly flawed system that a stream of one his album tracks will not only count towards the album chart & the sales of 'Divide', but also to the singles chart for the track in its own right.

Some chart fans like to claim that there's never been a more accurate indication of what the most popular songs are these days, because of the inclusion of streaming. Does streaming honestly demonstrate genuine popularity? I don't believe it does, not completely. Nowadays the UK singles chart is largely made up of data that is created from the passive listening generated by Spotify users, which is thanks to spoon-fed curated playlists that they'll lazily play. For a lot of people it's pretty much a glorified radio station, but with an element of choice. But millions of people could be playing songs that they don't even particularly like simply because they're keeping a playlist playing while doing the cleaning, or while at a party. It's a pretty flawed way of determining apparent popularity.

At least when the chart was officially just sales, it was all relative - the fact that people actually chose to part with cash to buy a single. The most bought single was #1 and that was the case for over 60 years. Streaming muddies the waters by introducing the concept of "most listened to" into the chart, alongside sales. The way that streaming is incorporated is that 150 streams is supposedly equivalent to 1 sale based on revenue. I find this to have been problematical from its inception. I just don't think purchases & plays can be fairly compared to each other. To me they're completely different forms of consumption, and have wildly different "shelf lives". With streaming, a song that is continually listened to for months on end by millions of people, possibly even the same people over that extended period, in the process generating hundreds of thousands or even in excess of a million "equivalent sales units", is just not the same as people buying a download and then that is their one off contribution.

I'm sure the OCC will end up facing pressure from labels to get a better system in place for the singles chart. I'm also quite sure that major labels are likely to be fuming that Ed Sheeran is taking up so many places in the singles chart and is in a sense artificially pushing actual singles down the chart, simply because his popular album is being streamed a lot.

At the end of the day, we don't need a slew of album tracks reflected in the charts, do we? The clue is really in the name: singles chart. I don't care that certain chart fans argue the toss about the definition of a single having changed to the point that anything is a single these days, because that was never the original purpose of this chart. Who'd have wanted 12 Dido album tracks hogging the singles chart in 2003? Thank God this is only a recent thing, which I really hope can be rectified, in the aftermath of Ed ridiculously holding 9 of the Top 10 singles positions for 2 weeks in a row.

I've lost a lot of my enthusiasm for caring about the singles chart, it's become painfully slow moving with the same few songs dominating for months on end now by the usual suspects. Steps have managed to attain a position of #37 thanks to strong downloads & also because they weren't included in the most followed Spotify-created playlists such as Hot Hits UK to generate the required streams needed to place any higher. It's an actual miracle they've managed to make a dent in the Top 40 tbh. Every other song in the Top 40 had at least 10,000 streaming units added onto their overall weekly totals - Steps had less than 3,000 units.

To me it's far more impressive that they're the 7th best selling download of the week, with 14,000+ people parting with 99p for it, compared to *picks a random album track from Ed's album* 'Barcelona', which barely scraped over 2,000 downloads (#46 in the sales chart), but has streaming units that equate to almost 29,000 equivalent sales (#10 in the streaming chart) to achieve an overall position of #12.

Steps brand new single - #7 on sales, not Top 100 on streaming = #37 overall
Ed Sheeran random album track- #46 on sales, #10 on streaming = #12 overall

:/

I know that this post is very TL;DR and thanks for taking the time to read even if you don't share the same view. I haven't touched upon the subject in this level of detail on a forum before, partly because I find the subject to be massively frustrating. But anyway, that's my view on the matter, and Steps getting to #37 in a flawed chart is completely by the by. I'll personally be far more interested in the position achieved in the albums chart, which is thankfully still a chart that is majorly based on actual sales of physicals and downloads. That'll be a more accurate assessment of Steps' popularity with their new music imo. And the huge success of the tour certainly speaks for itself too. :inlove:


I share the same view with you and you know how much I love the charts. :p I prefer the 1-4-7-9-14-23-30-37-59-OUT chart run instead of the same songs staying in top 10 for months. And with album tracks dominating top 10, I find it really ridiculous. It was impressive in the 90's, but not these days.
Image
User avatar
sammy01
Posts: 12424
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 15:30

Re: Steps

Postby sammy01 » 18 Mar 2017, 11:34

Jay wrote:The singles chart is barely relevant in its current form imo. The attention the OCC has received from Ed Sheeran's domination in the singles chart has been largely negative, with a number of articles using it to highlight what a sorry state the chart is in these days. Which I think is true. Never before has the singles chart looked so meaningless. There's no real need for an admittedly popular album to also take over the singles chart concurrently. The fact Ed's album is #1 in the albums chart should be enough to demonstrate the success of said album, that's the appropriate place for it. I find it to be an incredibly flawed system that a stream of one his album tracks will not only count towards the album chart & the sales of 'Divide', but also to the singles chart for the track in its own right.

Some chart fans like to claim that there's never been a more accurate indication of what the most popular songs are these days, because of the inclusion of streaming. Does streaming honestly demonstrate genuine popularity? I don't believe it does, not completely. Nowadays the UK singles chart is largely made up of data that is created from the passive listening generated by Spotify users, which is thanks to spoon-fed curated playlists that they'll lazily play. For a lot of people it's pretty much a glorified radio station, but with an element of choice. But millions of people could be playing songs that they don't even particularly like simply because they're keeping a playlist playing while doing the cleaning, or while at a party. It's a pretty flawed way of determining apparent popularity.

At least when the chart was officially just sales, it was all relative - the fact that people actually chose to part with cash to buy a single. The most bought single was #1 and that was the case for over 60 years. Streaming muddies the waters by introducing the concept of "most listened to" into the chart, alongside sales. The way that streaming is incorporated is that 150 streams is supposedly equivalent to 1 sale based on revenue. I find this to have been problematical from its inception. I just don't think purchases & plays can be fairly compared to each other. To me they're completely different forms of consumption, and have wildly different "shelf lives". With streaming, a song that is continually listened to for months on end by millions of people, possibly even the same people over that extended period, in the process generating hundreds of thousands or even in excess of a million "equivalent sales units", is just not the same as people buying a download and then that is their one off contribution.

I'm sure the OCC will end up facing pressure from labels to get a better system in place for the singles chart. I'm also quite sure that major labels are likely to be fuming that Ed Sheeran is taking up so many places in the singles chart and is in a sense artificially pushing actual singles down the chart, simply because his popular album is being streamed a lot.

At the end of the day, we don't need a slew of album tracks reflected in the charts, do we? The clue is really in the name: singles chart. I don't care that certain chart fans argue the toss about the definition of a single having changed to the point that anything is a single these days, because that was never the original purpose of this chart. Who'd have wanted 12 Dido album tracks hogging the singles chart in 2003? Thank God this is only a recent thing, which I really hope can be rectified, in the aftermath of Ed ridiculously holding 9 of the Top 10 singles positions for 2 weeks in a row.

I've lost a lot of my enthusiasm for caring about the singles chart, it's become painfully slow moving with the same few songs dominating for months on end now by the usual suspects. Steps have managed to attain a position of #37 thanks to strong downloads & also because they weren't included in the most followed Spotify-created playlists such as Hot Hits UK to generate the required streams needed to place any higher. It's an actual miracle they've managed to make a dent in the Top 40 tbh. Every other song in the Top 40 had at least 10,000 streaming units added onto their overall weekly totals - Steps had less than 3,000 units.

To me it's far more impressive that they're the 7th best selling download of the week, with 14,000+ people parting with 99p for it, compared to *picks a random album track from Ed's album* 'Barcelona', which barely scraped over 2,000 downloads (#46 in the sales chart), but has streaming units that equate to almost 29,000 equivalent sales (#10 in the streaming chart) to achieve an overall position of #12.

Steps brand new single - #7 on sales, not Top 100 on streaming = #37 overall
Ed Sheeran random album track- #46 on sales, #10 on streaming = #12 overall

:/

I know that this post is very TL;DR and thanks for taking the time to read even if you don't share the same view. I haven't touched upon the subject in this level of detail on a forum before, partly because I find the subject to be massively frustrating. But anyway, that's my view on the matter, and Steps getting to #37 in a flawed chart is completely by the by. I'll personally be far more interested in the position achieved in the albums chart, which is thankfully still a chart that is majorly based on actual sales of physicals and downloads. That'll be a more accurate assessment of Steps' popularity with their new music imo. And the huge success of the tour certainly speaks for itself too. :inlove:



Surely the definition of the singles chart was always 'single track chart' defining it from full length albums. There has never been a rule of what really is a single and random album tracks have been clogging up the 'singles' chart since downloads came into effect.

Whilst I might agree with you that people actually parting money for a download is more impressive than people streaming a song, you of all people know that downloads are dying out and it doesn't matter how impressive it is if that sample size becomes so small that the chart doesn't actually reflect anything anymore. It will soon become like the physical singles chart where Mel C can get to #1 and Desire can randomly chart at 80 something on 1 sale.

Streaming is the now and the future and whilst it needs some tinkering in terms of how it is reflected in the charts it will be the dominant share of the market for years to come.

Steps did fine, as you have pointed out they didn't make the top 100 on streaming so did well to chart at #37, but the fact of the matter is bemoaning streaming for a lower chart position is futile as it wont change and streamings stranglehold on the market will only get stronger.
Follw me, you know you want to - https://twitter.com/Sammyb01
Jamie
Posts: 22317
Joined: 08 Jul 2004, 18:36

Re: Steps

Postby Jamie » 18 Mar 2017, 12:07

Jay wrote:The singles chart is barely relevant in its current form imo. The attention the OCC has received from Ed Sheeran's domination in the singles chart has been largely negative, with a number of articles using it to highlight what a sorry state the chart is in these days. Which I think is true. Never before has the singles chart looked so meaningless. There's no real need for an admittedly popular album to also take over the singles chart concurrently. The fact Ed's album is #1 in the albums chart should be enough to demonstrate the success of said album, that's the appropriate place for it. I find it to be an incredibly flawed system that a stream of one his album tracks will not only count towards the album chart & the sales of 'Divide', but also to the singles chart for the track in its own right.

Some chart fans like to claim that there's never been a more accurate indication of what the most popular songs are these days, because of the inclusion of streaming. Does streaming honestly demonstrate genuine popularity? I don't believe it does, not completely. Nowadays the UK singles chart is largely made up of data that is created from the passive listening generated by Spotify users, which is thanks to spoon-fed curated playlists that they'll lazily play. For a lot of people it's pretty much a glorified radio station, but with an element of choice. But millions of people could be playing songs that they don't even particularly like simply because they're keeping a playlist playing while doing the cleaning, or while at a party. It's a pretty flawed way of determining apparent popularity.

At least when the chart was officially just sales, it was all relative - the fact that people actually chose to part with cash to buy a single. The most bought single was #1 and that was the case for over 60 years. Streaming muddies the waters by introducing the concept of "most listened to" into the chart, alongside sales. The way that streaming is incorporated is that 150 streams is supposedly equivalent to 1 sale based on revenue. I find this to have been problematical from its inception. I just don't think purchases & plays can be fairly compared to each other. To me they're completely different forms of consumption, and have wildly different "shelf lives". With streaming, a song that is continually listened to for months on end by millions of people, possibly even the same people over that extended period, in the process generating hundreds of thousands or even in excess of a million "equivalent sales units", is just not the same as people buying a download and then that is their one off contribution.

I'm sure the OCC will end up facing pressure from labels to get a better system in place for the singles chart. I'm also quite sure that major labels are likely to be fuming that Ed Sheeran is taking up so many places in the singles chart and is in a sense artificially pushing actual singles down the chart, simply because his popular album is being streamed a lot.

At the end of the day, we don't need a slew of album tracks reflected in the charts, do we? The clue is really in the name: singles chart. I don't care that certain chart fans argue the toss about the definition of a single having changed to the point that anything is a single these days, because that was never the original purpose of this chart. Who'd have wanted 12 Dido album tracks hogging the singles chart in 2003? Thank God this is only a recent thing, which I really hope can be rectified, in the aftermath of Ed ridiculously holding 9 of the Top 10 singles positions for 2 weeks in a row.

I've lost a lot of my enthusiasm for caring about the singles chart, it's become painfully slow moving with the same few songs dominating for months on end now by the usual suspects. Steps have managed to attain a position of #37 thanks to strong downloads & also because they weren't included in the most followed Spotify-created playlists such as Hot Hits UK to generate the required streams needed to place any higher. It's an actual miracle they've managed to make a dent in the Top 40 tbh. Every other song in the Top 40 had at least 10,000 streaming units added onto their overall weekly totals - Steps had less than 3,000 units.

To me it's far more impressive that they're the 7th best selling download of the week, with 14,000+ people parting with 99p for it, compared to *picks a random album track from Ed's album* 'Barcelona', which barely scraped over 2,000 downloads (#46 in the sales chart), but has streaming units that equate to almost 29,000 equivalent sales (#10 in the streaming chart) to achieve an overall position of #12.

Steps brand new single - #7 on sales, not Top 100 on streaming = #37 overall
Ed Sheeran random album track- #46 on sales, #10 on streaming = #12 overall

:/

I know that this post is very TL;DR and thanks for taking the time to read even if you don't share the same view. I haven't touched upon the subject in this level of detail on a forum before, partly because I find the subject to be massively frustrating. But anyway, that's my view on the matter, and Steps getting to #37 in a flawed chart is completely by the by. I'll personally be far more interested in the position achieved in the albums chart, which is thankfully still a chart that is majorly based on actual sales of physicals and downloads. That'll be a more accurate assessment of Steps' popularity with their new music imo. And the huge success of the tour certainly speaks for itself too. :inlove:


Jay as always is right and others as always are wrong and you will deal.
User avatar
do-it
Posts: 716
Joined: 16 Jan 2014, 10:58

Re: Steps

Postby do-it » 18 Mar 2017, 18:31

Jay wrote:The singles chart is barely relevant in its current form imo. The attention the OCC has received from Ed Sheeran's domination in the singles chart has been largely negative, with a number of articles using it to highlight what a sorry state the chart is in these days. Which I think is true. Never before has the singles chart looked so meaningless. There's no real need for an admittedly popular album to also take over the singles chart concurrently. The fact Ed's album is #1 in the albums chart should be enough to demonstrate the success of said album, that's the appropriate place for it. I find it to be an incredibly flawed system that a stream of one his album tracks will not only count towards the album chart & the sales of 'Divide', but also to the singles chart for the track in its own right.

Some chart fans like to claim that there's never been a more accurate indication of what the most popular songs are these days, because of the inclusion of streaming. Does streaming honestly demonstrate genuine popularity? I don't believe it does, not completely. Nowadays the UK singles chart is largely made up of data that is created from the passive listening generated by Spotify users, which is thanks to spoon-fed curated playlists that they'll lazily play. For a lot of people it's pretty much a glorified radio station, but with an element of choice. But millions of people could be playing songs that they don't even particularly like simply because they're keeping a playlist playing while doing the cleaning, or while at a party. It's a pretty flawed way of determining apparent popularity.

At least when the chart was officially just sales, it was all relative - the fact that people actually chose to part with cash to buy a single. The most bought single was #1 and that was the case for over 60 years. Streaming muddies the waters by introducing the concept of "most listened to" into the chart, alongside sales. The way that streaming is incorporated is that 150 streams is supposedly equivalent to 1 sale based on revenue. I find this to have been problematical from its inception. I just don't think purchases & plays can be fairly compared to each other. To me they're completely different forms of consumption, and have wildly different "shelf lives". With streaming, a song that is continually listened to for months on end by millions of people, possibly even the same people over that extended period, in the process generating hundreds of thousands or even in excess of a million "equivalent sales units", is just not the same as people buying a download and then that is their one off contribution.

I'm sure the OCC will end up facing pressure from labels to get a better system in place for the singles chart. I'm also quite sure that major labels are likely to be fuming that Ed Sheeran is taking up so many places in the singles chart and is in a sense artificially pushing actual singles down the chart, simply because his popular album is being streamed a lot.

At the end of the day, we don't need a slew of album tracks reflected in the charts, do we? The clue is really in the name: singles chart. I don't care that certain chart fans argue the toss about the definition of a single having changed to the point that anything is a single these days, because that was never the original purpose of this chart. Who'd have wanted 12 Dido album tracks hogging the singles chart in 2003? Thank God this is only a recent thing, which I really hope can be rectified, in the aftermath of Ed ridiculously holding 9 of the Top 10 singles positions for 2 weeks in a row.

I've lost a lot of my enthusiasm for caring about the singles chart, it's become painfully slow moving with the same few songs dominating for months on end now by the usual suspects. Steps have managed to attain a position of #37 thanks to strong downloads & also because they weren't included in the most followed Spotify-created playlists such as Hot Hits UK to generate the required streams needed to place any higher. It's an actual miracle they've managed to make a dent in the Top 40 tbh. Every other song in the Top 40 had at least 10,000 streaming units added onto their overall weekly totals - Steps had less than 3,000 units.

To me it's far more impressive that they're the 7th best selling download of the week, with 14,000+ people parting with 99p for it, compared to *picks a random album track from Ed's album* 'Barcelona', which barely scraped over 2,000 downloads (#46 in the sales chart), but has streaming units that equate to almost 29,000 equivalent sales (#10 in the streaming chart) to achieve an overall position of #12.

Steps brand new single - #7 on sales, not Top 100 on streaming = #37 overall
Ed Sheeran random album track- #46 on sales, #10 on streaming = #12 overall

:/

I know that this post is very TL;DR and thanks for taking the time to read even if you don't share the same view. I haven't touched upon the subject in this level of detail on a forum before, partly because I find the subject to be massively frustrating. But anyway, that's my view on the matter, and Steps getting to #37 in a flawed chart is completely by the by. I'll personally be far more interested in the position achieved in the albums chart, which is thankfully still a chart that is majorly based on actual sales of physicals and downloads. That'll be a more accurate assessment of Steps' popularity with their new music imo. And the huge success of the tour certainly speaks for itself too. :inlove:


Great post, Jay. You've really exposed how flawed the current chart is as a reflection of songs' true popularity. The sheeple and their spoon-fed playlists have far too much influence right now.
User avatar
sammy01
Posts: 12424
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 15:30

Re: Steps

Postby sammy01 » 18 Mar 2017, 19:06

As opposed to the cd single charts you all jizz yourselves over from back in the day, where you only had 20 to 40 releases max to choose from. Talk about sheeple you had zero choice outside of what the record companies fed you. At least now you can stream anything by anyone.
Follw me, you know you want to - https://twitter.com/Sammyb01
User avatar
do-it
Posts: 716
Joined: 16 Jan 2014, 10:58

Re: Steps

Postby do-it » 18 Mar 2017, 20:20

sammy01 wrote:As opposed to the cd single charts you all jizz yourselves over from back in the day, where you only had 20 to 40 releases max to choose from. Talk about sheeple you had zero choice outside of what the record companies fed you. At least now you can stream anything by anyone.


Yes, the old sales charts were far from perfect, that's a fair point. But I think there was a better balance between the casual sheeple and the hardcore fanbases.

I think we are just as much under record companies' control now as we ever have been: they control the whole streaming catalogue and can withdraw certain songs or albums at any time. They can also raise subscription prices. And if you're trying to find music by foreign artists or specific mixes or edits, for example, you soon realise how limited the selection is on streaming services.
User avatar
Tiiger
Posts: 7322
Joined: 12 Jun 2007, 19:48
Gender: Male
Location: Sweden

Re: Steps

Postby Tiiger » 19 Mar 2017, 11:04



A new interview. Has H always been this annoying? Poor Faye can't get a word in.
Image
User avatar
sammy01
Posts: 12424
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 15:30

Re: Steps

Postby sammy01 » 19 Mar 2017, 22:05

Wow just watched that interview and Lee is looking better than ever :inlove:
Follw me, you know you want to - https://twitter.com/Sammyb01
User avatar
Jay
Mod
Posts: 68096
Joined: 28 Jun 2004, 02:32
Gender: Male
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Steps

Postby Jay » 20 Mar 2017, 07:15

Thanks for the feedback about my charts related post, guys! :D I'm not completely against streaming counting towards the charts by the way, but I certainly think the way it's implemented currently isn't ideal at all.

Jay wrote:Not sure if this was posted before: http://www.musicweek.com/talent/read/st ... ong/067712

UK sales for three of their albums:

1,402,303 - Step One
1,291,588 - Steptacular
1,129,620 - Gold: Greatest Hits


In addition to this, Ultimate Collection has sold 230,426 to date!
Image

Return to “Music”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 2 guests