I wish i wouldn`t say this but here are my points.

Record companies want you the audience to buy albums,that is why they don`t release singles anymore which is lame. Why?
Because singles generate albums interests. With no singlkes available you are bound yto buy the album and waste money on songs you don`t even like.
how many times were you in a situation when you bought an album because of a song and you ended up liking only 3/4 songs on it?
Record companies said that singles sales cannibalize album sales. Is that so???
How was it posible then in 1990 when singles were issued that an album sold in millions like the bodyguard soundtrack or mariah carey albums?
Do singles sales cannibalize album sales in UK?
James blunt sold 2.5 million albums despite issuing singles there and his singles even made his album more appealing.

Now with the digital singles it`s good , more fair but we are far away from a true peoples chart.
Artists should release singles 2/3 most 2 weeks before the album.
americans should have various options , 10+singles like in the UK , their chart is fantastic and interesting because artists fight for no.1 .
Billboard charts are ridiculous because many songs stay at the top for 8+weeks and that is not the real situation.
And airplay should be banned completely.
How can you as music lovers think that what dj`s decide to play is what is good?
You know for yourself what is the best and you will go and buy it am i not right?
I don`t want a fat ugly guy sitting in a radio to decide what is going to be a hit and what isn`t-it takes away the beauty of consuming music.

Normally I would disagree with you....but now I'm starting to think you're on to something....

i dont like the way the american chart works out the number 1 single. From what i can gather your number 1 is passed on tv airtime, radio play, single buys and online sales (let me know if im wrong)

I prefer the charts of the UK, where only the record sales are used to show what is number 1, which is a fair way to do it. The average person is only going to buy the single once which gives a fair assumption of the actual number of fans of that particular single.

While in america fans will buy the single once, which is ok. But then when the same fans vote for the song to be on music channels, radio etc the figure of actual fans of the song because of the fans voting more than once for them to be played.

If the American chart was based on the same format as the UK chart, then singles like WBT wouldnt of been number 1 for all them weeks as the sales would decline. The UK chart represents a view on a single being good (1 or 2 weeks at number 1) or a single being great like James Blunt at number 1 for over a month with You're Beautiful.

I so prefer the UK charts, they're way more fair and realistic.

WOW! I am VERY intrigued by this post. I COULDN'T agree more.

actually i kinda agree with it its soo much better...that way that it is calculated by sales and not votes cause some people just spam with votes

The only flaw in this came up back in the mid 90s, when two of the biggest radio hits (No Doubt's "Don't Speak" and Spice Girls "Say You Will Be There"...or was it "wannabe"? They were involved) were not released as cd/record/whatever singles. Hell, some recent #1s would not get there under the old format, which was just how many singles were bought, and (less used) radio play. They flipped it since they thought it was more fair.

Personally, I say it should be 65% singles (online and hard copy) and 35% radio play. It would be more realistic as well as balanced. But it gives songs that aren't up on iTunes a chance for success depending on how much money labels pay to radio stations.

I agree that the UK's way of doing charts is better at this point, since the DJs here in America *do* play the same damn music. Oh, and payola too. Can't forget payola. I agree with Mikal also...it should be 65% sales and 35% airplay, with digital sales figuring heavily into the 65% of sales as well, since that TRULY represents what the people like.

I came in expecting an argument that the UK's taste in music is better...i'm glad you didn't go down that route. I mean, really, any country that had CRAZY FROG at #1(and for multiple weeks at that) deserves to burn.

Ryan does make a good point that crap will find a way back to #1.

But at least "Axel F" got to #1 fairly. We can never tell with today's charts, thanks to Sony and Colombia's behavior over the last few years and all the payola accusations and the same 9 songs being played.

And really, is "Axel F" really worse than "Grillz" or "Check on It" or "Laffy taffy"?

Well, I don't know about it being worse than "Grillz"...

I like the UK and Austrailian charts more so than the US's.

I think 65% sales are a little much.

Where as a country who has some rap **** at #1 every other week is soooo much better Please.

*cough*Busted*cough*

Yeah let me tell you, cause a fake frog voice making car noises thru a whole song is so much better than rap!

The Crazy Frog jam was good for me, then it got old and very annoying.

"brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring- bing-bing-bing-bing-bing-bing-BONK-Bonk!"

Nope, all of the Spices singles were released on singles. I think you might be thinking of Natalie Imbruglia, who would've gone to number one if she had released a single.

BTW, I think the last market that the U.S. should be aping is the U.K. market. IT's like the most unstable music market in the world. If a single misses the top 40 (or sometimes the top 20, or the top 10) an artist (especially one just starting out) will probably be dropped from their record label.

Also, streetbond, you do know that record companies lose money on single releases, right? And that only like 10 singles sell enough to be profitable? It's a horrible business model. If anything, you should be trumpeting the downloadable single.

Bottom line, the U.S. way of releasing singles is much better in the long run. It's not fair to a song and to an artist to only be able to spend 1 or 2 weeks in the top ten. That's just madness. Climbing up the chart is a much better sign of a song's popularity.

Oh, it was Nat, wasn't it. Heh, mix all those late 90s pop songs up :-p

I don't think too much should depend on digital downloads, because it's not like a voting system each week. Once you buy the song, you're not going to buy it every week, so that leaves room for a lot of fluctuation instead of letting the song reach the height of it's possible popularity, crappy or not.