Chart Show move isn't really about the Chart Show

Surely what's really important in the story about a possible move of the Radio One chart show from Sunday to whenever is less the move itself, and more the reason behind it:

From summer 2015, new music will be released at 00:01 on Friday.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) hopes an aligned global release day will reduce piracy and "re-ignite excitement".

The Official Charts Company confirmed it would "also be looking to move the UK chart announcement day".

Yes, every record will henceforward be released at the same time all over the world, to, you know, reduce piracy (somehow) and... sorry, what was that phrase again?

"re-ignite excitement"

Let's leave aside the whole question of how this would actually work when you've got situations like Charli XCX's Sucker, which came out in the UK this month but had already had its US release back in 1972 or something.

Instead, let's just wonder what salary the people who came up with this idea are on. Faced with the structural decline of music purchasing, their big idea was not better records, or different records, or even records which came with flavours on them.

Oh, no. They actually believe that a person is more likely to be (a) excited by and (b) pay for a track if they know it's being released on a Friday at the same time only not because of timezone differences as "the rest of the world" by which we mean America really.

It's One Direction you've got to feel sorry for - imagine how popular they might have been had their first releases not been dragged down by humdrum Monday release dates, eh?

Naturally, there's a lengthier expression of this preposterous position:

Frances Moore, the IFPI chief executive, said: “In today’s globalised world, it makes no sense for new music to be released to fans on different days of the week.

“We view this as a tremendous opportunity to breathe new life back into the release of music. Friday has a compelling logic to it, at the start of the weekend when fans most want to listen to and buy music.”

Sometimes you wonder if the people who work at places like the IFPI have ever listened to music ever.

- Hey, Tom, I've got the new Stibby Jolenenza record here, do you want to listen to it?
- Margaret, are you insane? It's only Wednesday. I'd have thought a big music fan like you would want to wait until Friday evening, when proper music fans start listening to music

There's also that odd suggestion that music fans buy records at weekends. Now, when I was younger, maybe there'd be something to that - until Saturday came round, hopping on a bus and heading off to Woolworths or Rounder in town wasn't that easy. Now, though, whoever the poor benighted fifteen year-old who is my equivalent is, all they have to do is press their phone's purchase button.

(Oh, god, knowing what an asshat I could be at fifteen, it's possible that the 2015 fifteen year-old me equivalent is refusing to get a phone on some vague point of principle. Just get one, 2015 fifteen year-old me equivalent. It's not like anyone likes you because of your stance. And for god's sake, lose the 2015 Tears For Fears t-shirt equivalent.)

Paul McGowan, chief executive of Hilco Capital, which owns high street retailer HMV, said it was “a totally logical move”.

He said: “Quite simply, new music should hit the high street when people hit the street. New Music Fridays will get new releases to fans when they most want to buy them.”

Obviously, Hilco know enough about retail to have managed to salvage some sort of high-street presence for HMV, but I'd be intrigued to know who this demographic is - who are so hungry for new experience they don't want a record that came out four days ago, but who are able to wait long enough to go into town and buy it rather than download it straight to their phones.

Still, as an indication of where the thinking of the IFPI is these days, it's a useful guide. And for those remaining physical record stores, the day for the assistant looking confused when you ask for a new CD is moving from Mondays to Fridays. Make a note in the Filofax you're probably still using.

Album charts apparently still going; intend to add streaming

The addition of streaming to the singles charts gave a headache to the Official Charts Company - how do you weight a listen to a tune against the purchase of a CD?

They're now adding streaming data to the album charts, and that's created an even more Sheldon Cooper style twisting of data to make sense.

They've rejected the model used by the Billboard charts:

In the US, the Billboard chart equates 1,500 streams of any song from an album to one sale.

However, that leads to situations where the popularity of one song pushes the entire album up the chart.

(Additionally, and surely more worryingly, it means that the effort of one song is going to be counted for both the singles and album charts, which seems odd.)

So what have the UK chart counters come up with?

The Official Chart Company says it will weight its data to avoid similar situations.

It will look at the 12 most-streamed tracks from each album, then down-weight the two most popular in line with the average of the next 10.

These streams will then be added together and divided by 1,000. This "stream factor" will then be added to the physical/digital sales of the album, to produce an overall "sales figure" that determines an album's position in the countdown.

Louis Walsh was last seen heading home to see if he still had his log table.

There's nothing like a completely transparent system to make the list of best-selling album, is there?

You might ask why it's only streaming albums which get adjusted if people access them but only want to listen to two tracks? Why shouldn't physical CDs be marked down if the purchaser only makes it through the first couple of songs, or rips it to their PC but only ever plays the hits?

The album chart, like the singles chart, will ignore YouTube data completely so won't even reflect what people are really listening to.

Charts: Surely they've streaming already?

An announcement from the South Bank...
Just before we get to the announcement from the South Bank, what's with the Official Chart Company and the BPI having some of the most expensive office space in London, right down opposite Parliament? Given everything the BPI does is funded by its members, which means ultimately it is money that otherwise would have gone to musicians or songwriters, shouldn't it look to taking cheaper rooms? I suppose they'd argue that being in the old GLC buildings is great for access to the people who make law, but is that true? Do they communicate by semaphore from across the Thames? Or just nip out and hang around outside the Tesco Express hoping to bump into Michael Fabricant? Because they could do that with an office in Uxbridge and an Oyster Card.
The Official Chart Company has announced that streaming will be added to the toxic brew ("mix") which makes up the charts:

Official Charts Company boss Martin Talbot told BBC News that the changes are "about future-proofing the charts".

"So far this year we've seen nine tracks which have been streamed more than one million times in a week," Talbot explained. "Last year there were only two tracks that had reached that kind of level."

Bastille's 'Pompeii' is the most-streamed track of all time in the UK so far with 26.6 million steams to date but only made number two in the singles chart based on sales alone.

Bastille were given the announcement to make:

On one hand, this makes sense, and it's surprising that it hasn't happened before - like, eighteen months ago, probably.

On the other... this is a bit problematic. The Billboard charts always included radio play alongside sales, on the basis that that was a measure of popularity. The UK charts never did, for the two strong reasons.

One, that just because something is being listened to on the radio doesn't mean it's being enjoyed (look how long DLT broadcasted for).

Two, that radio play is a lot more nebulous than sales. How do you weight a play on Little Rissington FM against someone paying 79p to buy a track? Can you be sure all those plays for that local band on Froome Sound are because the band is popular, and not because the station manager's daughter is the bassist?

So, sesnsibly, the charts focused on a slightly more trustworthy measure of popularity - a financial transaction.

Obviously, this was, and is, still open to gaming - managers filling the trunks of their cars with godawful CDs by their terrible bands, purchased to give them a boost; slipping singles into different sleeves. But it was a least bad situation.

The problems with radio play are multiplied by streaming. How many 'listens' indicate an enthusiasm that equals someone willing to shovel over some money over to own that track?

Maybe the falling price of a single has made this argument less compelling, but even so - does 'I keep hearing about this Kasabian all over the place, I wonder she's like, I'll go to Spotify and play her song OH MY GOD THIS IS AWFUL are they all this bad? I'll try another OH MY GOD THIS IS WORSE' really have the same weight as someone who thinks 'I love Lana Del Ray, I've already bought the CD single but simply can't wait for it to be delivered so I'll get the download too'?

And if you accept that a single Spotify play can't equal a purchase, you suddenly find yourself having to create an exchange rate. And once you do that, your chart becomes opinion-based, not fact-based.

There is such an exchange rate:

To reflect the difference in weight between streaming and purchasing, 100 streams will count as equivalent to 1 single (download or physical single) in the chart compilation process.

Oddly, the amount of cash earned by a musician for their track being streamed on Spotify isn't 1% of the amount they get, so you have to wonder about the 'science' behind this particular ratio.

And that's before you ask the question about how you can be certain there are ears listening to the stream, rather than just a handy-dandy little script or two deployed across a number of computers?

Jermain Jackman isn't even the new David Sneddon

To think we used to enjoy a good snurkle at how quickly Fame Academy winners would fade from view - although they might never have turned their win into household name status, at least David Sneddon managed a few top ten singles as he headed for the exit. Alex Parkes even got a double platinum album out of it.

Not so the winners of The Voice.

Leanne Mitchell set the pace, winning in 2012 and following up with a number 45 single, an album which peaked at 134 and a rapid dropping from her label.

Andrea Begley did better. Winning in 2013, her debut album made it into the top 10 and, although her singles tend to peter out of steam before they make it above three digits, she did have a number 30.

But so far, no Girls Aloud. Indeed, the chart performance of Voice winners starts to make Steve Brookstein look like Elvis Presley.

But what of this year's lucky contestant, Jermain Jackman. Can he restore the honour of the programme?

Jermain Jackman, only managed to reach number 75 in the charts with his debut single, ‘And I’m Telling You I’m Not Going’, a heartfelt ballad about his refusal to break into even the Top 40.

Not only did he only manage 73, he was beaten by one of the non-winners. Sally Barker got to 46 with an Olly Murs cover. It's not great, but that makes a giant amongst the Voice alum.

Chart to be inundated by rising tide of streams

Apparently, last night at a Radio Academy event, Radio 1's George Ergatoudis let slip plans for the UK charts to count plays on streaming services as part of the calculations.

The cynic might wonder how come it hasn't happened yet, given that it's February 2014 and not, say, 1998 or 1965.

The supercynic might just express surprise that they're still making a chart of records to play on the radio.

The hypercynic, though, would just wonder if including figures from Spotify and the others is just a cunning way of disguising how few sales it takes to get into the charts these days.

Thatcher: Ding Dong results

So, if you were involved with the Ding Dong campaign, you might be thinking you'd succeeded pretty well: the push to get the song charting became a media obsession; front pages in the Mail, Express and Telegraph; BBC management thrown into panic; Charles Moore's confused egg-features caught in puzzled confusion on Question Time. There was even the spectacular contra-campaign which saw Maggie lovers either unwittingly or witlessly buying a punk song that was also an attack on their hero.

As a way of ensuring that the nation was reminded not everyone revered Thatcher, it worked like a charm.

And it even made number two in the charts.

It turns out, though, that the whole thing was a failure.

Luckily, Louise Mensch is on hand to explain why:

It's so good to see that #HopeNotHate triumphed and #DingDidnt flopped at the fence. Much like her opponents in life :) #Thatcher

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) April 14, 2013

Yes, she really did attempt to hijack the name of the anti-racism campaign to hashtag it. Classy.

Did it really matter that the song only got to number two? Probably not, but there's something very Thatcherite, very 'either you're a winner or you're nothing', about the way of viewing the chart position.

But what of the lowly 35 position for I'm In Love With Margaret Thatcher? Was that hashtag hatenothope, then?

Guys: chart is WHOLE WEEK sales not final position. So awesome of #GranthamStyle to make it in in 1 day...

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) April 14, 2013

Louise doesn't understand much about the charts, it turns out. The Notsensibles campaign kicked off on Friday, which is two and a half days of chart-qualifying sales, not one.

And yet, oddly, while suggesting you had to make adjustments for the short time the Love campaign was running...

So there you go. A song they planned to be at No. 1 when Lady #Thatcher died - mobilised for in advance, bought all week - #DingDidnt #fail

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) April 14, 2013

Except Thatcher died on Monday and the Ding Song campaign didn't get underway until Tuesday, so, er, it didn't have a full week's sales, either.

This Tweet is even odder:

And despite weeks of planning I'm still betting ... #DingDidnt - fingers crossed!! #HopeNotHate

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) April 14, 2013

Weeks of planning? How would the Ding Dong campaign have had weeks to plan? Unless Thatcher had phoned up a couple of months back - "I've just seen a fortune teller who's advised me not to bother getting started on the Borgen box set..."

HA! #dingdidnt Planned since 2007 and couldn't manage what Ant and Dec did with no planning in a week. Victory for decency and respect!

— Nik Smith (@niksmith84) April 14, 2013

Except, again, Nik, Ant and Dec's sales ran for a full week. And I think they sold about 10,000 fewer copies.

So, there we have it: Tens of thousands of people buy a record specifically to show a lack of respect for their hero, and yet it's still a victory because Ant And Dec had got to number one with only the top-rated Saturday night TV show.

History is going to judge us all harshly, isn't it?

Thatcher: Express angry at prospect of Chart show playing record in the chart

Here's a story from The Daily Express. Skip past the the headline and first bit - where a person who does drama sessions at school is misleading described as a "teacher" to ramp up the outrage - and focus on the foaming about the chance Radio One might play Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead this weekend:

BBC radio chiefs risk a furious backlash by playing a song which has become the anthem of anti-Baroness Thatcher protesters, it emerged last night.

The chart hasn't been compiled yet; the record hasn't been played yet; there is no backlash, furious or otherwise. But the Express has the blood pumping.

A massive online campaign has seen Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead, taken from the Wizard Of Oz, rocket into the Top 10 of the official midweek charts.

But with the tune a strong contender for the No1 spot this weekend, bosses have failed to rule out playing it during the official countdown.

In a statement the BBC said: "Radio 1 will run through the official chart update as normal, however, we only play a selection of entries each week.

"The chart show on Sunday is an account of what the public has been buying and we will make a decision about playing it when the final chart positions are clear."

Oddly, the Express doesn't seem all that bothered about the chart shows on commercial radio, who are presumably in exactly the same position. And those music TV stations who run down the charts too. Almost as if this was more about having a pop at the BBC than an actual story.

Isn't the point the Express has missed that the only expression of "furious backlash" here is that demonstrated by people who are buying the track in the first place?



Margaret Thatcher looked stunning, yes;
but why no nipples in the Daily Express?

Perhaps John Cooper Clarke for number one next week, then?

Radio 2 repeat 6Music Coldplay experiment; get identical results

Earlier this year, 6Music presented listener with a list of songs and asked them for their favourite. Disappointingly, it ended up with Coldplay winning.

So when Radio 2 presented listeners with a list of "most-played albums" and asked them to rank them?

It's no surprises:

1 Coldplay - A Rush Of Blood To The Head
2 Keane - Hopes & Fears
3 Duran Duran - Rio
4 Pink Floyd - The Dark Side Of The Moon
5 Dido - No Angel
6 The Rolling Stones - Sticky Fingers
7 Pet Shop Boys - Actually
8 The Beatles - Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
9 U2 - The Joshua Tree
10 Queen - A Night At The Opera

I know that we should take seriously no list which clears its throat by announcing that A Fit Of Vapours In The Bentley is the best anything, but just look at that. I'm no Beatles acolyte - I think you'd have spotted that - but even I know that Dido's No Angel is not a finer body of work that Sergeant Pepper's.

Interesting to see Actually, there, though. Actually.

6Music regret asking

Topping off the somewhat extended 10th birthday celebrations, 6Music asked its listeners to vote for the 100 best tunes released during its lifetime.

That was always going to be a mistake, wasn't it? Apart from anything, 6Music likes to wear the clothes of a station for whom charts and mainstream popularity are of little interest and so this sort of poll feels like one step away from offering the breakfast show to Bruno Brookes.

More importantly, by its very nature, the exercise was doomed to have the more mainstream offerings of the station coagulate at the top of the list. In fact, I believe an identical list of 100 records circulates round advertising agencies whenever they need to come up with a new tune to slap on an ad for Homebase or Vodafone.

And, there, topping it off: Clocks by Coldplay.

If 6Music had planned to run a high-profile advertising campaign that said "you know our reputation for loving new music and seeking out bright new sounds? Fuck that, we're more like a permanent shuffle on your brother-in-law's Zafira stereo", it would be less damaging than this.

I listen to 6Music a lot, and it not being the sort of station where you'd hear Clocks by Coldplay is a major part of the attraction.

In fact, the Last.FM listing of tracks played on the station appears to back this up. Admittedly, Last.FM doesn't track every single track played, and hasn't been gathering data across the whole of 6Music's life, but Clocks doesn't show up in the 500 most popular tracks. (Older songs - DeeLite's Groove Is In The Heart, and the Wu-Tang's Gravel Pit, for example, do make the 500 so age is no disadvantage.) Coldplay do turn up, around the mid 300-teens, with Viva La Vida.

So we're left with the strange situation that the supposed "best" song of the station's lifetime gets played less often than, say, Ladykillers by Lush, or Every Day Should Be A Holiday by The Dandy Warhols.

So what's going on?

A pair of embarrassed Tweets from 6Music last night offers an explanation:

Hi everybody, The Greatest Hits was always likely to provoke an emotional response to the music we all care about.

— BBC Radio 6 Music (@BBC6Music) February 1, 2013

Some bands will always have bigger voting power due to their popularity but the range of artists in the list shows our breadth of music

— BBC Radio 6 Music (@BBC6Music) February 1, 2013

In other words, the chart was hijacked by a big band with a large fanbase. Whoever saw that coming, eh?

Chart music might be dead

Olly Murs currently has the number one album and the number one single in the UK charts.

Think about that for a second.

Adele's chart shame

After 96 weeks, it looks like everyone who wants one has finally got hold of a copy of Adele's 21, and it's finally dropped out the chart.

Only out the Top 40, of course. She's still in the top 50.

Rihanna reaches number one. Actually, she's sold a few more copies than that.

A notable week this week, as Rihanna claims a record she'd probably rather not have: The first album to reach number one in the UK with sales below 10,000 copies.

Rather than wonder if their pricing and product is correct, the record labels want to simply fudge the way the chart works to stop it being embarrassing when Rihanna is compared with, say, Ed Sheeran's sales:

But with streaming services like Spotify luring digital buyers from iTunes, record companies believe that album “plays” should be included in the charts.

How would that work, actually? There was a statistic a while back which suggested the average number of plays for each CD purchased in the US was less than one, which would suggest that the 9,000-odd physical sales should count as something less than that if plays were being considered, which doesn't make sense.

How about accepting that the album was never anything more than a side-effect of how much you could fit on a disc, and perhaps dropping the album chart altogether? Add those 9,000 sales to the single sales for each of the individual tracks?

Streaming piles

I'm struggling to grasp what the point of a a chart of streaming music is meant to do. Besides, perhaps, drawing some brief attention to the existence of streaming services?

One chart - the chart, the Sunday one that used to be the Tuesday lunchtime one - is fair enough, although given the instant feedback and constant monitoring you get online its now more about confirming what you already know; a moment to freeze the data rather than a revelation.

And that should contain a details of all music consumption that implies a transaction has taken place.

But is anyone - outside, perhaps, the people who run the servers and collect the royalties - that worried about the granularity of the detail?

Here, from the Official Charts Company, are the streaming and sales charts of the year so far:

01 ED SHEERAN 01 DAVID GUETTA
02 LANA DEL REY 02 GOTYE
03 DAVID GUETTA 03 JESSIE J
04 RIHANNA 04 FLO RIDA
05 COLDPLAY 05 NICKI MINAJ
06 GOTYE 06 ED SHEERAN
07 JESSIE J 07 RIHANNA
08 EMELI SANDE 08 EMELI SANDE
09 FLORENCE & THE MACHINE 09 RIZZLE KICKS
10 DRAKE 10 KATY PERRY
11 FLO RIDA 11 COLDPLAY
12 BEYONCE 12 LMFAO
13 ADELE 13 OLLY MURS
14 BEN HOWARD 14 DJ FRESH
15 SKRILLEX 15 CARLY RAE JEPSEN
16 RIZZLE KICKS 16 LANA DEL REY
17 NICKI MINAJ 17 ADELE
18 KATY PERRY 18 LABRINTH
19 OLLY MURS 19 KELLY CLARKSON
20 ONE DIRECTION 20 BEYONCE

Which is which? Does it matter overmuch? (The streaming chart is the one on the left, the singles chart on the right).

I'm not against the idea of sharing the data; I just don't see that what we're getting requires the hoopla of pretending it's a useful chart.

Adele steals record from Whitney

As if it wasn't bad enough that Adele turned up at the Grammys to scoop up buckets of prizes on a night when everyone was supposed to be being serious-faced about Whitney Houston, she's also managed to equal Whitney's record of most weeks at number one in the US album chart. It's like she doesn't care.

Does not compute

The idea that there's an algorithm which can predict if a record will be a chart hit often pops up; there's a new one being reported on by BBC News:

University of Bristol scientists claim to have developed software that can spot whether a song has hit potential.

The program looks at 23 separate characteristics including loudness, danceability and harmonic simplicity.

Trained using hit songs from the Top 40 over the last 50 years, the software can predict chart positions with about 60% accuracy, the scientists say.

Really? Given that most singles released in the last half century vanish without trace, I'd be a bit surprised if the University Of Bristol has managed to number-crunch them all, and without the ones which sounded like hits which never took off, you'd have to question that 60% accuracy figure.

Indeed, it turns out the 60% accuracy figure is based on working out where a new entry would end up, not on if a new release would chart.

That might have been a useful tool back in the 70s, when singles would enter the charts low and wind their way slowly up the list, like a tired man carrying shopping up a hill. But since the trend started for songs to debut at the top of the chart, it's hard to see what use this would be: "Your song which went straight in at number one sounds like a number one".

And there's this:

What regularly tripped up the equation were the unexpected hits that became popular for reasons that often had nothing to do with their musical qualities, he said.

In 2010, Surfin' Bird by The Trashmen reached number three in the UK charts, thanks to a web campaign persuading people to buy it to prevent X Factor winner Matt Cardle being the Christmas number one.

In a similar way, said Dr De Bie, the equation could not determine to what extent marketing determined whether a song was a hit.

Not being able to take account of marketing when determining likely chart outcomes is akin to predicting the outcome of a horse race without counting the legs of the horses.

Gordon in the morning: A man in control

You'll have been worrying if Gordon's column today is the genuine thing, or if LulzSec still has control of the Sun website.

There's a bunch of made-up stories all over the Bizarre page, and a bunch of stuff that wouldn't appear in a proper newspaper. So, hard to tell.

But hang on, what's this?

NOEL Gallagher's first hurdle as a solo artist will be having to face Coldplay in a battle of the albums.

The guitarist will have a job on his hands to stay at the top of the charts for more than one week this autumn.

Chris Martin and the band are releasing their latest offering seven days later.

A facile "chart battle" story about two records that aren't even being released on the same day? With Noel Gallagher involved?

This Gordon Smart column passes Some Sort Of Turing Test.

Gordon in the morning redux: That chart battle result

You remember the big battle Gordon spent time talking up between Take That and Foster & Allen?

The results are in:

Take That - Number 1
Foster & Allen - Number 40

I think there needs to be a recount there, eh?

Beatles: Very slight tremor, few injured

Yesterday, there were two schools of thought about the Beatles iTunes launch. Naturally, we were going with the cynical, won't make much difference line, while Gennaro Castaldo led the charge for this being a ground-breaking moment. A watershed. A Kennedy-in-Dallas moment. Gennaro foresaw a singles chart clogged with Beatles as far as the eye could see, for as long as recorded history could bear.

At first, it looks like Gennaro was right, judging by the Guardian's report:

British music-lovers are double-clicking their love for Hey Jude, Twist and Shout, and Let It Be.

At the time of writing, Beatles songs have been available as legitimate paid downloads for just under a day. And already the Fab Four occupy 15% of iTunes UK's top 200.

15% of the top 200? That's thirty tracks.

That really would clog the top of the chart.

Except, to clog the top of the chart, you'd have to be near the top of the chart:

40 Hey Jude
59 Twist and Shout
65 Let It Be
77 Here Comes the Sun
79 Twist and Shout
97 Blackbird
98 In My Life
99 I Saw Her Standing There
101 Come Together
109 A Day in the Life
123 Hey Jude
125 Help!
128 Eleanor Rigby
146 I Am the Walrus
147 Let It Be
154 Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds
155 A Hard Day's Night
158 Yesterday
160 Hey Bulldog
163 While My Guitar Gently Weeps
171 Yesterday
172 You've Got to Hide Your Love Away
176 Strawberry Fields Forever
183 Strawberry Fields Forever
184 With a Little Help From My Friends
185 In My Life
190 Norwegian Wood
192 Penny Lane
194 Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
197 The Long and Winding Road
198 Here Comes the Sun

There are some doubles because there's more than one instance of some songs in the iTunes store.

But let's just look at the top end of that chart - even with all the hype, they've not even managed to dominate the iTunes top ten. And only one song has managed to scrape into the Top 40.

Far from being long-awaited, it turns out that the response to The Beatles coming to iTunes has been a path largely beaten away from Paul McCartney's door.

Perhaps Castaldo was right, though. This does feel like a watershed moment. The day when The Beatles started to be just another band.

Now, that has been long-awaited.

Gordon in the morning: Enough with the chart battles, now

Gordon has put on the spangly bikini and is parading round the boxing ring with a large card again this morning:

THERE hasn't been a decent chart battle since little JOE McELDERRY squared up to RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE last Christmas.

Really, Gordon? Only yesterday somebody - by which I mean you - told me this:

There's gonna be a lively chart battle this week as TINIE TEMPAH and LABRINTH release singles today.

Then there was Flo Rida against Roll Deep in August; Flo Rida against The Saturdays; Professor Green taking on Eminem and Mark Ronson; Professor Green squaring up to Scouting For Girls; Rangers battling Celtic; The Wanted in a chart battle with nobody in particular and Jedward and Vanilla Ice in a battle with taste.

Oh, and Jamelia and Alesha Dixon.

This time last year, by the way, Smart was using his skills as a music forecaster to prepare us for George Michael's battle for the Christmas number one.

So, all those other chart battles that Smart has been getting excited about in the last twelve months, he's now decided weren't "decent" enough to have counted.

So what's he now setting his battle-gaze on?

New boys JLS will attempt to slay man band TAKE THAT in the album charts.

JLS? Against Take That? In the album chart? Oh, yes, that's a fight of equals. Like pitching a greyhound against a horse, and then racing them round the Grand National course.

Hang about, though, Gordon spots a potential third challenge:

November 22 is also the date for the new Now! compilation

Yes, that's true. I'm sure the detail of compilation albums being listed in a totally separate chart won't spoil that competition at all, Gordon.

Johnny Dee calls for chart separatism

Johnny Dee is alarmed by the plan to release every X Factor performance as a digital download this year, and has a radical plan - banning covers from the singles chart.

Actually, I'm not sure it's such a major worry. Part of the reason why the X Factor Christmas single does so strongly is because people have spent weeks watching a series, and this is the pay-off: you've spent hours watching things come to this point, you might as well pay a couple of quid for a souvenir.

If every track is available to buy, not only will a lot of that build-up to the moment of purchase be lost, but also those people who buy a disappointing version of Hallelujah because they aren't able to buy the better song the singer did a couple of weeks back will no longer have to do so; they get the song they want.

Sure, the winner's single will be still be an unstoppable vehicle, but more of a runaway milkfloat than a cascading juggernaut.

Still, Johnny is worried that we'll see a chart cluttered up for weeks with dental nurses and comedy twins doing cover versions.

You or I might see this a problem a bit like someone dropping a crisp packet in the Gulf Of Mexico - it's a terrible thing to do, but not even making a bad situation worse in any noticeable way.

So his idea? Ban cover versions:

In the 80s when compilations such as 'Now That’s What I Call Music' took over the album charts the solution was to consign them to their own separate chart - a chart that receives absolutely zero attention and never will despite the fact that compilation albums still sell 10 times more than single artist albums.

But this was a cynical record label move, purely designed to disguise the fact that nobody really much liked albums anyway, and only ever wanted the singles. It was a war against pop, not in its favour and - of course - has really rendered every chart since then more meaningless than the albums charts would be intrinsically.

With one brave step The Official Chart Company could do more for genuinely talented artists than thousands of talent shows. They could create a single chart for original music and a separate singles chart for cover version music.

In an instant Cowell’s empire would crumble and along with it, as collateral damage, the supermarket bilge of Westlife and their ilk. The campaign for decent pop starts here.

The problem here, though, is that while it would have stopped Atomic Kitten's The Tide Is High getting to number one, it would have also stopped Blondie's version doing the same.

A chart rule which would have turned Robert Wyatt's Shipbuilding away at the door because it wasn't proper, or would have told Sinead O'Connor to try harder than merely doing a cover of Nothing Compares 2U, is clearly a bad rule.

And if the rule was put in place, how could Liquid Greek celebrate getting to number 10, knowing that they only did so because the songs that people were actually buying weren't being counted? It's like winning a race at a championship were the elite athletes arrived late due to taffic jams.

Worse, because the covers will be all over the radio, people will look at the charts, not see the songs they feel to be the current hits, and wonder what the point of a chart is at all. "What is the Liquid Greek and where are Jedward and Joe?" Nobody much cared about Now vanishing from the album charts, because nobody really even knew there was an album chart back then, apart from readers of Record Mirror and the bloke who pinned the list up in Woolworths. Cutting the songs people - for whatever reason - value out of the chart makes the chart irrelevant to those people. Not the best way to shore up the chart.

If the charts are to have any meaning, they have to a dumb, basic, report on what people are buying. Not making value judgements or raising spurious quality thresholds.

If the charts are full of old clod, it's because people's ears are full of old clod. Pretending it isn't there won't make things better.