Songs sticking on the charts forever

[Timmy94]

In the last few weeks we have so many songs charting for a long time...
On the Billboard Hot 100, 10 songs are charting for more than half a year, on the UK Singles Chart, it's 25 and on the German Singles Chart, it's a total of 26 songs.

This makes you wonder why those songs keep selling and selling week after week even if it's time to finally get over them...
There are even songs on all 3 charts like Moves Like Jagger, Rolling In The Deep or Party Rock Anthem when you wonder how people can still buy these songs in such huge numbers...

There have always been songs charting over such a long time, like 2 or 3 real outstanding ones, but it seems like this keeps increasing rapidely.

I thought it would be due to ITunes and other music shops offering songs permamently but that's also been the case 5 years ago when we haven't had songs sticking on the charts for such a long time.
Especially the digital era makes it possible that people can directly get to know a song but it seems like today, songs take forever to peak... In the US, it's quite a normal thing to peak after the 20th week (imagine: 5 months after debuting (!)) thinking of Love You Like A Love Song, If I Die Young or Not Over You...
Even in the UK and Germany, where songs used to peak in the first week, you can see ones taking more than 2 months to take, although you should think that if the digital era makes you get to know a song faster, it should make you get fed up with it faster, too...

[JimJim]

WARNING: Massive post lol

I think you answered your own question, it's the final end of the transition from the physical to digital format. In the physical era, there was so many factors to take into consideration (company plans, distribution, shops, consumers), that it was either not financially viable to stock a single for an extremely long time or it was strategic (e.g. to try to gain album sales, or push the next single instead).

Comparing five years ago isn't quite fair for two reasons:
a) The physical format still existed in broad circulation
b) The digital format hadn't reached saturation

Now that the digital format is reaching saturation (as far as singles go), we will see the full effects of this.

As for peaks, that depends on the market, you could always calculate out the statistics if you had the time on your hands. In the UK, I'd say it is uncommon-to-rare that a non 'on air, on sale' single peaks outside of its first two weeks on the chart.

In Australia, most hit singles peak before 10 weeks, with a considerable amount of minor hits or low entries peaking even earlier. I did some quick calculations, these are the singles in the top 50 right now that have been there for 12 or more weeks, in brackets is the week they peaked...

- Wild Ones [4]
- Into The Flame [8]
- I Love It [10]
- What Makes You Beautiful [9]
- Hey Hey Hey [6]
- Take Care [11]
- Lonely Boy [7]
- Turn Me On* [6]
- Paradise [15]
- Levels [16]
- Count On Me [4]
- Summer Paradise [5]
- Sexy & I Know It* [4]
- Set It Off [7]
- International Love* [7]
- Young, Wild & Free [8]
- Pumped Up Kicks [21]
- A Thousand Years [6]
- Somebody That I Used To Know [5]
- I Like It Like That [8]
- Rolling In The Deep [8]
- Don't Worry Be Happy [6]
- Someone Like You [12]
- Good Feeling [6]
- We Found Love [3]
- Feel So Close [11]

*Excluding appearances as cherry picked downloads in album release weeks

Therefore, we can conclude that a hit 2011/12 single in Australia will peak on average after 8.19 weeks on the chart.

[Timmy94]

Though it must be said that Australia has always been fast when it comes to new songs.
It hasn't been a rare thing that songs reach their peak there at first and than abroad...

In the other countries, We Found Love or Good Feeling e.g. are still in the top 20 when I think "OK, they were successful, they had their time, now let them go" while I assume that they chart for another 3 months...

What I also noticed: "Normal" songs hardly reach No. 1, if one does so it seems to always end as a huge hit...
In contrast not every No.-1-album ends as a Multi-Platinum-chart breaker and it would be nice if this was more balanced.
I take as an example for you, JimJim, Mr. Know It All which reached No. 1 in Australia but wasn't such an unbelievable upper hit while Someone That I Used To Know or Sexy And I Know It were THAT huge and most of the other 2011 No.-1s, too...

[JimJim]

Albums are different, because the opening week can be heavily dependent on the size of the fanbase, who will all rush out to buy it in the first week of release (the album then drops).

There's always going to be the less successful #1 singles yes, there tends to be one or two per year. It usually has something to do with the song, or why the song reached such heights in that given week.

Kelly Clarkson's 'Mr. Know It All' was the least successful #1 single in Australia in 2001, spending one week at #1 and ending at #46 on the EOY chart. It managed to get to #1 in that given week because:
a) The song was fresh and interest was at the all-time high
b) She had a high level promo performance that week (the NRL grand final)

An alternative example is Brian McFadden's #1 single 'Just Say So', which spent three weeks at #1, but disappeared so quickly that it finished the year as the least successful #1 single at #48 on the EOY chart. Why? The song was 'flash in the pan', a lot of people enjoyed it, but only briefly. It had rapid saturation and the public got sick of it quickly.

Both tracks lacked the on-going appeal to maintain a extended chart run, despite having those very high moments of popularity.

This doesn't happen just here either, what about Britney's 'Hold It Against Me' as a US example?

[Graham76man]

Don't forget that TV shows such as Pop Idol and X-Factor are using these big hits and exposing them again to more people than regular chart buyers. Adverts also do the same
Then you have the album versions of the tracks with special editions that people like to cherry pick! And then in the UK, don't know about elsewhere, we have the NOW albums which for some reason or other start replacing the download single version of the same track Even though it's the same!

Then there's the new artist problem. Which is that the big merged record companies are spending less money to develop talent. Indeed many new acts are now coming out of talent shows. While other new acts are content to reach a smaller market and not be on the big sites such as I-Tunes.

[NothingFails]

What I dislike about radio's mentality of this is that they will keep a song playing to death until *they* are tired of it... instead of the old days where an act would drop a new single/video and radio would shift focus to the new single... unlike today where they're still playing 2-3 singles ago by certain artists.

[Titan3510]

^ That's because radio programmers don't know how to set up playlists, manage the playlists and still keep an ear out for other music....

[NothingFails]

^ That's because radio programmers don't know how to set up playlists, manage the playlists and still keep an ear out for other music....

That is true.

I cringed so hard a week or so ago in the car when the programmer said "we have the new one by Florence + The Machine coming up" and it turned out to be Shake It Out, six months and two singles ago. They've put out No Light No Light and Never Let Me Go (which could definitely score some decent airplay) since yet they're still claiming the single that came out when the album did six months ago is "new"

[Betties]

I had listened to the radio when I was in junior school,but when I leaved it I stopped to listen to the radio,for that it is so mad me,I can't bear a song being listened over and over again.

[Graham76man]

I don't think radio is to blame for songs sticking in the charts these days. Yes they do repeat records all the time, but they have always done that and songs didn't hang around in the 90's much did they?

Apart from what I mentioned in the previous post. I think the repackaged album is a lot to blame. But mostly it's people who don't download on a regular basis that are keeping old songs going. They just need something to get them racing to a download site and Bob's your uncle!
However I've got a funny feeling that some downloaders are getting shut of some songs after say 10 weeks of solid play. Deleting them from the I-Pod. Ten weeks or so later, they hear the song again, look for it and say "oh sh** I deleted it from my I-Pod" and so download it again
This certainly happens to Christmas records, which is why Mariah keeps coming back every Christmas.

[NothingFails]

I don't think radio is to blame for songs sticking in the charts these days. Yes they do repeat records all the time, but they have always done that and songs didn't hang around in the 90's much did they?

in America they sure did. It was just as bad in the 90s as now in the US

[Titan3510]

I don't think radio is to blame for songs sticking in the charts these days. Yes they do repeat records all the time, but they have always done that and songs didn't hang around in the 90's much did they?

in America they sure did. It was just as bad in the 90s as now in the US

+1

The biggest and best example of that is One Sweet Day.



Good song but....that song was overplayed to the nth degree...

It took me every bit of 14 years to get back to enjoying that song. And even so, I prefer the remix and the acapella versions to the original studio version...

I don't know. Whenever the opening chords begin and the drums kick in, I think 40% of Americans feel this overpowering urge to hurry up and switch to something else...

[jpguy]

Have you seen the "Moves Like Jagger" (Maroon 5 feat. Christina Aguilera) airplay? It refuses to die!!! Still over 60 million in airplay (and increasing) after 300 days of being released, that is INSANE!

[NothingFails]

I don't think radio is to blame for songs sticking in the charts these days. Yes they do repeat records all the time, but they have always done that and songs didn't hang around in the 90's much did they?

in America they sure did. It was just as bad in the 90s as now in the US

+1

The biggest and best example of that is One Sweet Day.

it all changed around 1994 IMO. Before that a song came, peaked and fell and the next single had its cycle, then suddenly acts like Hootie, Sheryl Crow, Green Day, Toni Braxton, TLC and the sort started having songs that were in heavy rotation for six months. The all time worst IMO had to be Hootie's debut album, they had no less than three songs on that album alone that were played to death for nearly a year, and I think to this day they burnt out so fast because of that.

[leoapp]

Have you seen the "Moves Like Jagger" (Maroon 5 feat. Christina Aguilera) airplay? It refuses to die!!! Still over 60 million in airplay (and increasing) after 300 days of being released, that is INSANE!

\
So true! One of a couple 2011 summer hits which still gets big airplay till today. What an amazing longevity, still top 20 airplay!
A few months ago, many people considered The Voice made the song huge, but it clearly has an amazing longevity till today.

[Graham76man]

I don't think radio is to blame for songs sticking in the charts these days. Yes they do repeat records all the time, but they have always done that and songs didn't hang around in the 90's much did they?

in America they sure did. It was just as bad in the 90s as now in the US

Yeah that's one of the downside of being in a capitalist countries. Private companies (radio stations) run the music charts. However in the UK we had the BBC, who didn't want the USA crap in the charts. So no UK chart used airplay from radio. Well Official chart that is
However it failed anyway and these days the UK charts are full of USA crap

[NothingFails]

I don't think radio is to blame for songs sticking in the charts these days. Yes they do repeat records all the time, but they have always done that and songs didn't hang around in the 90's much did they?

in America they sure did. It was just as bad in the 90s as now in the US

Yeah that's one of the downside of being in a capitalist countries. Private companies (radio stations) run the music charts. However in the UK we had the BBC, who didn't want the USA crap in the charts. So no UK chart used airplay from radio. Well Official chart that is
However it failed anyway and these days the UK charts are full of USA crap

hey, you guys have given us One Direction

And the music biz needs both the UK and US. I mean, we gave you Justin Bieber, but we've also given you Michael Jackson, Springsteen, Stevie Wonder, Prince, etc... Just like how we can forgive you for Spice Girls and One Direction because you also gave us The Beatles, Who, Bowie, Stones, etc..

[foxygraandpa]

Taio Cruz "Dynamite"

[preyan]

I think also:

Jason Mzras - I'm Yours
Usher - Burn
Mary J - Be Without You

( I think the last 2 were close onto 70 weeks on Billboards R&B charts

[Graham76man]

I've just found out that the USA chart is now using streaming as well as airplay. That's why One Direction are there. I can't see that making records go away, but it may push the charts in the US in a different direction.

[NothingFails]

I've just found out that the USA chart is now using streaming as well as airplay. That's why One Direction are there. I can't see that making records go away, but it may push the charts in the US in a different direction.

Trust me, you guys have some amazing exports... One Direction are not one of them

[Graham76man]

I've just found out that the USA chart is now using streaming as well as airplay. That's why One Direction are there. I can't see that making records go away, but it may push the charts in the US in a different direction.

Trust me, you guys have some amazing exports... One Direction are not one of them

I would have to agree with you on that

Mind you we do have to put up with Justin Beiber so that's one (direction) back at you

Or should that be Wand Erection

[jio]

Well, I have no clue about the Australian charts but the current longevity of songs in the UK is unprecedented. In the US, yes we had huge runs in the 90s also but that was due to airplay factored in the charts. If we look at sales only, I suspect that there is also unprecedented longevity in the US sales-only singles charts as well (although I do not know that for sure).

I think the reason for that is the download single. Downloads are not records, they are just songs. Back in the physical day you would buy a record, once you were tired of it you would stock it somewhere and once you missed it you would take it out and play it again. Downloads are different. I think they are more similar to the songs we used to tape on cassette than to actual records. You buy a song and once you are tired of it you delete it. Then if you miss it or if you are preparing for a party and you believe the song will make everyone dance, you download it again. Sometimes you may even forget you have it or you may have it listed under a wrong name so, it is so cheap, you download it again.

Also the price of the downloads has made them the tool of the teenagers and pre-teenagers mostly and they can get passionate so they can keep downloading the same single just to keep their faves in the charts or to have all the remixes etc

I think those factors account mostly for the longevity of songs in the charts.

[Timmy94]

So you think that downloads are too cheap and the price should be raised?

[jio]

Nop, I don't think prices should be raised because they don't offer value for money. It is just one song you are downloading. And old-style physical singles rarely offered value for money too and they were terribly expensive. But I do think that the single charts are not indicative of what's really popular anymore thanks to what I said

Maybe a german-style system where what you spend counts rather than how many copies you get (along with rules prohibiting prices climbing above some reasonable level) would be more fair. Or a system combining value sold with copies sold somehow.