Only paid streaming should count towards charts

[Quark 7,098]

o<(0_0)>o

We've seen time and time again how several artists have surpassed Gaga on the charts just because of their streaming power. If sales were the only factor in chart positions Gaga would probably still be close to the top. Now I am not saying this just because this benefits Gaga, but also because it seems unfair that free streaming could help an artist be at the top. Many of these streams are gained simply because many people stumble apon some songs on YouTube and Spotify playlists just as easily as they do when they turn on the radio. Other songs are streamed just out of curiosity, but people would have not given these songs a chance if had to pay for them. And as we all know, many songs get easy repeated plays by fanbases, just so their favorite artists gets a higher charting position. So I think that only paid streaming and sales should count towards the charts because at least then, we would know with more certainty that people wanted to support specific artists and songs.

[Anderson123 38,801]

I disagree. There are a lot of people using free Spotify and other stuff like YouTube which helps them discover new music. That and indie artists get a chance to get noticed out there. I think it'd be super boring if the same big stars kept dominating the charts every time.

[ryanripley 86,575]

6 minutes ago, Alan123 said:

I disagree. There are a lot of people using free Spotify and other stuff like YouTube which helps them discover new music. That and indie artists get a chance to get noticed out there. I think it'd be super boring if the same big stars kept dominating the charts every time.

but then that would mean the charts before streaming would have always been the same, charts will evolve naturally along with the GPs trends with or without streaming

OT: i agree tbh

[Oriane 21,177]

No, this won't leave a chance to smaller artists. Why would you pay for an artist you don't even know and don't know if you're going to like their music ?

[boyerased 2,886]

No. I’d be fine with it for certifications but with the charts? Its existence is to know what’s popular, not what sells. You are overestimating the power of fanbases. They’ll help you with physical sales for sure but with streaming, majority of it is within gp’s control. The charts should reflect what’s popular, not what sells the most. To play the devil’s advocate, had streaming been a thing before, I could see all three TFM singles push to #1.

[Doot 2]

I think that in general, the charts shouldn’t mean all that much simply because the way songs are streamed are not realistic to the actual audience of the song. 

I think putting a song on repeat and turning down the volume just to have a song chart higher is silly. If the song is a good song, then it should be able to have a regular audience stream it. 

 

[Quark 7,098]

1 hour ago, Alan123 said:

I disagree. There are a lot of people using free Spotify and other stuff like YouTube which helps them discover new music. That and indie artists get a chance to get noticed out there. I think it'd be super boring if the same big stars kept dominating the charts every time.

I agree with everything you said. I think you misunderstood me. People will still have access to all the free streaming services, they just won't count for the charts anymore.

[Quark 7,098]

1 hour ago, Oriane said:

No, this won't leave a chance to smaller artists. Why would you pay for an artist you don't even know and don't know if you're going to like their music ?

People will still get their free streaming services. But only sales and paid streams will count for the charts. So you can still listen to songs for free, and then decide if you want to buy or or stream with a monthly paying account.

[LADYGAGASHOOCK 3,986]

19 minutes ago, Quark said:

I agree with everything you said. I think you misunderstood me. People will still have access to all the free streaming services, they just won't count for the charts anymore.

So many who disagress 

At least I agree with you. Today, no matter how successful you are as a musician/artist, it’s hard to tell the demand because of free streaming. So if only paid subscriptions only counts, the problem is solved. + It’s more fair

[Solitaiire 2,564]

Nah, artists get very little for streaming already and that would make it worse. this is why taylor swift removed her music off of streaming platforms and you want it to be worse? no bby

[Quark 7,098]

1 hour ago, Solitaiire said:

Nah, artists get very little for streaming already and that would make it worse. this is why taylor swift removed her music off of streaming platforms and you want it to be worse? no bby

They still will get paid the same. The only difference would be that free streams won't  count for the charts. The commercial aspect won't change, only the tracking aspect.

[ArtGagaPop 61,940]

I think not counting plays of a song when on a big public playlists would be a great way to solve this issue. Those are just like radios, the playlist creator and labels can push for a certain song to become a hit and most people listen to these playlists to discover new music or just to have some random music on in the backround just like they would with radio.

But if a useer takes the time to actually search for example "Million Reasons-Lady Gaga" and finishes the song then i think it should count to official chart, no matter free or paid user.

[Oriane 21,177]

10 hours ago, Quark said:

People will still get their free streaming services. But only sales and paid streams will count for the charts. So you can still listen to songs for free, and then decide if you want to buy or or stream with a monthly paying account.

Ok. Do we know which artists/music are listened to with paid streaming vs those who are listened to with free streaming ? Is there a big difference ?