nm

I cannot believe this. It is ridiculous.

I agree JK, but still would say there do need to be some rules in order to make it fair. I.e. The amount of tracks on a single.

Another thought. If Gnarls isn't out yet, how come you can buy it? Surely the fact it's available means it's out? What rules are in place for determining it "being out"?

WHEN is a track released?
WHEN is it "no longer available"?
WHAT is a "single"?
The stupid Chart people have not thought through the ramifications and practicalities and the result is CHAOS.

Being out in terms of downloads qualifying for the chart means that the physical version is released a week after. As the Gnarls isn't due out till around the first week of April it doesn't fit the guidelines/rules.

Does this mean that all fourteen tracks on our new release, on the album, can now be counted as fourteen different singles by different acts, or does this loophole only apply to the majors??

I don't understand why there has to be a physical release too. Without this rule it would open up the playing field to anyone who can create a master, what's wrong with that? It would certainly make life a lot more interesting.

The BPI and BARD (the physical retailers) run the charts.
The last thing they want is REAL HITS made in bedrooms and uploaded dominating the charts.
Whatever would happen to Shayne Ward?

Whatever would happen to Shayne Ward? I'm sure his talent would see him through.

Seriously though folks, wouldn't that be great? Real music being bought because people liked it, rather than because they are told to like it.

The majors appear to have got into a lovely habit of releasing recordings that are finished without an advance being paid.
Nice work if you can get it.

I presume you're talking about MCPS? If not, this is another area that makes the current industry set-up very geared towards a major monopoly.

Wasn't this rule introduced at about the same time as they decided to stop labels issuing a 2nd CD the week after the original release - to keep the momentum going?

I think this only matters if you're bothered about where things come in the chart. I wonder who is? Chart positions don't make songs better or worse, they're not even very reliable opinion polls (a few fans make a big difference), and they do NOT influence whether or not we playlist something on the 40-odd radio stations I'm working with. That's been the case for years, and it's bugged me how much effort the labels go to for a chart position rather than long term building sales.

This is what I can't understand - who actually does use the chart to decide whether or not to support a tune? Shops? Newspapers? I don't think it's consumers, and it ain't me!

They need some kind of measure to show to their bosses which projects are worth continued funding and which are not.

If there were not some kind of chart - and labels were funding acts for considerable time and allowing for them to develop, the most likely initial reaction is that fewer acts would get signed in the first place.