The thing about Charts is that they always reflected sales which, in the 60s, was a great programming aid utilised by many in the UK but few in the rest of the world. Even the USA had several rival charts - Billboard, Cashbox, Record World - and the only actual SHOW that used them (quite popular) was my friend Casey Kasem's syndicated one.

HYPING started early in the USA but meant less because the chart was not important to US media. I started it in the UK in the 70s and it helped me enormously. But when everyone started doing it, the impact on the charts was dreadful and, as a result, programmes that relied on it started dying, featuring hype instead of truly popular tracks.

These days we need a POP-I - a Popularity Index - which shows which tracks are popular, be they available for purchase or not. And, in tandem, we need TV and radio shows reflecting (rather than preceding) them.

End of lecture.

Actually, the Official Streaming Charts launched last month is probably as close to Pop-I as you're going to get. It is based on what people are choosing to listen to on a weekly basis on Spotify, Deezer, We7 and other services. I've always been against including traditional radio AirPlay data as it doesn't provide the level of choice by the listener by song, just by radio station.

Agreed Dixie - and easy to hype programmers (though I seem to have failed to do so in recent years).

But Pop-I would include things like TV commercials, live performances like Susan Boyle's first Les Mis song, You Tube...

POP-I sounds like a good idea in fact BIg Champagne are doing something like that. They aggregate data from multiple sources so might be the source for your Pop-I chart. Check it out.
bcdash.bigchampagne.com/

Yes - Big Champagne goes some of the way.

And the hope is to incorporate it into the Prime Time format Simon Fuller is interested in at this very moment (in between Andy Murray games).

No matter how accurate any potential chart is or could be going forward they will have far less impact as an overall indicator of an acts true success (as opposed to let's say 1964). Let's forget an outlier like Adele's "21" for a minute.

Today an act will make the largest portion of retained revenue from live performance and merchandising. Possibly publishing added to that if they are writers as well.

Today's acts for the most part have to be multi-media artists. I guess the Black Eyed Peas would be a quick example of that. TV/Fashion/Games/appearances other than music performances and more.

In any case no matter how accurate the charts are it's a new world order. As a writer would I like to have a number 1?....Of course if nothing more than to be able to say you did........but it is not like Burt Bacharach having a number 1 in 1970.

Spot on GG. I think we have the right idea and to certain degrees are doing it
but we really need to bury the old model once and for all otherwise we will be bogged
down by it. A runaway hit will still be a runaway hit though.

The reason we need an accurate, fair, high profile, well respected chart is that it's a FILTER - an essential to get those millions and millions who never hear music unless someone brings it to their attention. Then, often, they love it, want it and buy it.

Without a good list programming will rely on personal taste and we all get it differently.

Without a fair chart radio and TV play priorities rather than mass appeal quality; ratings suffer; sales droop.

JK2006 wrote:
The reason we need an accurate, fair, high profile, well respected chart is that it's a FILTER - an essential to get those millions and millions who never hear music unless someone brings it to their attention. Then, often, they love it, want it and buy it.

Without a good list programming will rely on personal taste and we all get it differently.

Without a fair chart radio and TV play priorities rather than mass appeal quality; ratings suffer; sales droop.

There are (at least) three basic problems with your concept:
1) Radio & TV have their own research, based on their target audience (and the priorities of the labels). The overall popularity of a track isn't important for stations which want to reach certain demographics.

2) This new chart wouldn't be based on data which is a "true" / "objective" measure of popularity, but (at least in the cases of the most important gatekeepers, radio & TV) on data which is the result of playlist decisions made according to the priorities of UMG & SONY MUSIC.

3) Where is the audience (formerly known as the mainstream) interested in music from lots of different genres?