Since I left it the wankers have managed to ruin the music industry. The chart used to be so highly respected and such a great promotion tool for British music. Nowhere else had such a powerful tool. Now with streaming added it no longer reflects true popularity; just specialist interest. Nothing against Ed, who I like, but boo hoo.

www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/singles

The tragedy is - back in the 60s, mainly thanks to The Beatles (making massively cross over appeal hits) and Pirate Radio (playing great hits) music world wide became the most important ingredient in young peoples' lives. It was a fantastic time. We lived and breathed music. My own life was an example; it was love of music and love of literature that took over my teenage years.

Music remained essential for ages. Kids from the 90s adored Oasis or Blur. Note; it was often British music. I cannot stress too highly the importance to the Treasury and the Economy of British music.

I was about to become Global Chairman of EMI - the biggest British record company, when my career got derailed by the False Allegations Industry. Coupled with Homophobia (the ages of consent were only equalised two days after my arrest; Paul Weller and Mich Hucknall had been "done" and dropped by Surrey Police days before me but heterosexual rape was less likely to succeed in conviction).

Without my influence (and that of The Tip Sheet) the charts got less important quickly. Abuse of the chart by major labels meant it reflected priorities instead of genuinely popular music and the ratings of chart shows dropped. Top of the Pops got cancelled. The hits were awful; nobody liked them. Kids started finding their own music (thanks to the Internet) but specialist tastes dominated. No normal music lover was going to enjoy One Direction or early Bieber.

The charts were jiggled to reflect popularity. But it was a lesser popularity. Streaming is like wallpaper and reflects "like" rather than "love". Just as "friends" these days often means people you've never met.

I "like" the music of Ed Sheeran and Adele. I "love" one or two of their tracks but, as always, I "love" a few tracks by different people. I "loved" Rather Be and 7 Years Old.

This explains why, sadly, music means so much less these days than it did 50 years ago.

Dare I say... yes, I do... if I were still in charge of the British music industry, things would be very different. I may be 72 but I do know about enthusiasm.

But what would you do to solve the problem that paid for sales are continuing to fall at such a fast level that the sales charts no longer fully reflect what people (especially teenagers, who traditionally have been the most enthusiastic purchasers of singles) are "consuming". It would be like having attempted to return, in say 2008, to a physical sales only chart when downloads were in the ascendancy.

I can remember a contribution you made to a Music Week article in 1997 where the subject was to do with reducing the churn in the chart when there was about 20 new entries inside the top 75 each week and every single was peaking in week one. If I recall you suggested either averaging out sales over a two week period or basing the chart on revenues rather than unit sales. Neither would have dealt with the then problem, that the nature of the chart and how most singles buyers were purchasing singles, had changed from the "golden age" (yourself, the 1960s/1970s, myself the 1970s/1980s) of singles. Similarly, most teenagers now stream, rather than download, tracks. A sales (downloads, and what remains of the physical singles market) chart would become even more irrelevant to the generation that is supposed to be the one that follows the chart the most.

Not to be confused with Robbie above.

The streaming of a song shouldn't be considered the equivalent of actually buying a physical record or even a download. People stream songs to test them out and to see if all the hype is real. I have streamed many songs on spotify or amazon that I would never buy. If we consider a streaming of a song as a sale, then we should go back and consider that everytime someone listened to a song on radio 1 or anywhere else to be the same as a sale, which would be ridiculous. Ed Sheeran seems a nice enough chap with some nice songs, none of which will stand the test of time and he has none of the star quality of say George Michael, Boy George, David Bowie or Marc Bolan. There is very little competition for Ed these days. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.

Robbie 1 asks the question "what would I do?". The answer is not that the charts need redefining; it is that the music industry needs to be better run - with the real talents marketed better and with TV, radio and, most important, online start recreating that enthusiasm for cross over music we had in the 60s and 70s. And even the 80s (which decade I attribute much of the enthusiasm thanks to myself with Entertainment USA, No Limits and my SUN column).

robbiex wrote:
Not to be confused with Robbie above.

The streaming of a song shouldn't be considered the equivalent of actually buying a physical record or even a download. People stream songs to test them out and to see if all the hype is real. I have streamed many songs on spotify or amazon that I would never buy. If we consider a streaming of a song as a sale, then we should go back and consider that everytime someone listened to a song on radio 1 or anywhere else to be the same as a sale, which would be ridiculous. Ed Sheeran seems a nice enough chap with some nice songs, none of which will stand the test of time and he has none of the star quality of say George Michael, Boy George, David Bowie or Marc Bolan. There is very little competition for Ed these days. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.

I never see the fascination with Sheeran, whether if it anything to do with the target market I have no idea. What Robbiex said 'nice enough chap with nice songs'. Thinking Out Loud that was very bland to me and was just their to get the young girls wet. (Primark are stocking his latest album...I have no idea what's it called and don't frankly care)

I still think George Ezra never gets the real recognition he truly deserves and yes if he came to a theatre near me I would try and get a ticket or 2, if Sheeran came to a venue near me I would just give it a pass.

Do check out this excellent thread on this issue over at Haven Forum.
You have to register to view the chart forum though
fatherandy2.proboards.com/thread/90157/c...on-read-first?page=5

I wish I had more time to debate this, but a few comments.

The current chart includes sales (digital downloads and physical - where they exist) and streaming, where a stream is ratios at 150:1. On paper that all looks sensible. But the issues are that ANY track (single or album track) can be streamed (obviously assuming its on the streaming service - which wasn't the case with Adele's 25 album initially). So all the Ed Sheeran tracks counted as album streams (1000;1) AND Sinle streams (150:1).

The singles chart did exactly what it was supposed to do. It ranked the 40 most popular tracks over the last 7 days. It reflected the fact that 9 of the Top 10 happened to be by Ed Sheeren.

It in fact didn't do much different to what the "Pop-I" idea would have done. It MEASURED on-going popularity i.e. consumption, of the music.

But the good old public don't like the results. I'm sure OCC are now looking at the methodology again, but a knee-jerk reaction isn't the answer.

Yes my Pop-I would have been fine for then but it would be different now. No the problem is not the chart; it is the people running the music companies who have allowed music to drift down the running order of public importance.

A lot of the problem now re: streaming, downloading to devices and tracks hanging around the chart forever is the channel-hopping attention-spans combined with the throwaway culture re: those devices the tracks are downloaded onto. People are buying or streaming the same tracks over & over due to a lack of imagination, and the same kinds of 'artist' being over-promoted by the media.

I find Ed Sheeran & Adele OK in small doses, I find being told over & over they are musical genius's objectionable. I hear interviews with young musicians spouting platitudes and citing Coldplay as 'inspiration', then I watch a group of 50-something hedonists on a BBC Four documentary being challenging, eloquent and inspiring - and there is no comparison. It's a different world.

The music I love the most was all about and inspiration & 'vision'. Either the artists had vision, or the producers or svengali's behind 'lesser acts' had a vision. Most pop had a deftness of touch and a degree of intelligence behind it - and so did the audience it was created for. Not the case now, alas.

Chris wrote:
A lot of the problem now re: streaming, downloading to devices and tracks hanging around the chart forever is the channel-hopping attention-spans combined with the throwaway culture re: those devices the tracks are downloaded onto. People are buying or streaming the same tracks over & over due to a lack of imagination, and the same kinds of 'artist' being over-promoted by the media.

I find Ed Sheeran & Adele OK in small doses, I find being told over & over they are musical genius's objectionable. I hear interviews with young musicians spouting platitudes and citing Coldplay as 'inspiration', then I watch a group of 50-something hedonists on a BBC Four documentary being challenging, eloquent and inspiring - and there is no comparison. It's a different world.

The music I love the most was all about and inspiration & 'vision'. Either the artists had vision, or the producers or svengali's behind 'lesser acts' had a vision. Most pop had a deftness of touch and a degree of intelligence behind it - and so did the audience it was created for. Not the case now, alas.

They have talent but they are not geniuses in any form. Ed Sheeran just uses simple chords and basic strumming he is no Vinnie Vincent.

And in turn Vinnie Vincent is no David Hasslehoff! Looking for freedom!