1 hour ago, Love Again said:

4.1M units in its first week yes

1 minute ago, Both Sides Now said:

Explain why it would be totally stupid. 
 

The UK has another rule where it neutralises the top 2 songs of an album - I’m not suggesting that. However, the SPS of 33-track album (Dangerous) has been counted the same as the SPS of an 11-track album which is why Dangerous is breaking all time records. It’s essentially three albums in one. 

Not everyone can have long albums be consumed in their entirety like Morgan Wallen. I'd rather have that dominating the charts than albums that got almost all of their streams from one or two hit singles.

8 minutes ago, Both Sides Now said:

Explain why it would be totally stupid. 
 

The UK has another rule where it neutralises the top 2 songs of an album - I’m not suggesting that. However, the SPS of 33-track album (Dangerous) has been counted the same as the SPS of an 11-track album which is why Dangerous is breaking all time records. It’s essentially three albums in one. 

Because you would basically completely ignore streams coming from some songs on the album. I don’t remember the amount of tracks allowed in the UK but let’s say 12: an album with 13-14 songs is automatically punished as people streaming the 13th and 14th songs aren’t being taken into account. I understand the fact some people are annoyed by long albums but at the same time, in the end, it takes the same amount of time to stream as people streaming 12 songs on repeat. Also, when there are like 30 songs, people most likely have their favorites so it’s hard to just take the 12 most popular songs and act like the 18 others don’t exist.

 

In my opinion, if there is something to change as an emergency, it’s the way streams are counted regarding the length of a song: it’s not normal that a song lasting 2 minutes has the same weight as a song lasting 5-6 minutes.

People always talks about him and nobody is talking about Elton John's Diamonds. I mean i'm his biggeer fan as yoU can say for my avi but DiamonDs it's on top 20 on BB200 after 276 weeks. Not only it's gonna stay there forever cause 54 tracks but he always put the new material in the album (the dua lipa and britney duet).

 

Definitely BB needs to make new rules. Not counting certain tracks after a frame of time, you can't add new tracks after one year (elton is adding new music to a 2017 album) and so on.

 

 

 

Edited March 3, 20233 yr by vale9001

15 minutes ago, Axelios said:

Not everyone can have long albums be consumed in their entirety like Morgan Wallen. I'd rather have that dominating the charts than albums that got almost all of their streams from one or two hit singles.

Definitely artists more album centered are more helped by this, nobody is denyng it...BUT every artist has fans consuming everything... for every artist 30 tracks are better than 18-20 and that's makes sales bigger and longevity better.

 

Edited March 3, 20233 yr by vale9001

1 hour ago, Chemist said:

Why would they even review this  

Because he's a big artist? Lol

He’ll still smash lol 

10 minutes ago, Squall said:

Because you would basically completely ignore streams coming from some songs on the album. I don’t remember the amount of tracks allowed in the UK but let’s say 12: an album with 13-14 songs is automatically punished as people streaming the 13th and 14th songs aren’t being taken into account. I understand the fact some people are annoyed by long albums but at the same time, in the end, it takes the same amount of time to stream as people streaming 12 songs on repeat. Also, when there are like 30 songs, people most likely have their favorites so it’s hard to just take the 12 most popular songs and act like the 18 others don’t exist.

 

In my opinion, if there is something to change as an emergency, it’s the way streams are counted regarding the length of a song: it’s not normal that a song lasting 2 minutes has the same weight as a song lasting 5-6 minutes.

Yeah, 12 sounds might be somewhat restrictive but even capping it at 20 songs would be a start.
 

The length of songs plays into Morgan’s situation too, 33 tracks = 1 hr 37 mins. Lana’s NFR, 14 songs = 1 hr 7 mins. I’m sure are more extreme examples. 

 

11 minutes ago, vale9001 said:

People always talks about him and nobody is talking about Elton John's Diamonds. I mean i'm his biggeer fan as yoU can say for my avi but DiamonDs it's on top 20 on BB200 after 276 weeks. Not only it's gonna stay there forever cause 54 tracks but he always put the new material in the album (the dua lipa and britney duet).

 

Definitely BB needs to make new rules. Not counting certain tracks after a frame of time, you can't add new tracks after one year (elton is adding new music to a 2017 album) and so on.

 

 

 

Totally agree.

tanked hillbilly

Seems a bit performative. Perhaps they should have just ignored it and reviewed something more interesting instead. I'm pretty sure the people that listen to Morgan Wallen aren't perched for the Pitchfork score or the final Metracritic score either, so who is this review for?

 

As already mentioned earlier, Billboard should do what the UK charts do, measure album popularity and not how many songs you can stuff on one album.

Critics tend to review the artist just as much as the actual work, so it’s hard to say if the album is that bad, or if it’s because he’s racist.

 

Anyway, I have better things to do than listening to racists, so I won’t be listening to confirm for myself, but best of luck (not really) to all involved. 

Maybe 1.4, maybe

Racists don't deserve such high score

Should've been 4 points lower

All my straight relatives stan him; I had to step in to drag his horrible grating vocals during Thanksgiving when they were watching his concert live on TV. They said I listened to too much Beyoncé and she’s barely a decent singer.  Hope his album pan everywhere so I can show them how horrible how music truly is. 

Edited March 3, 20233 yr by Kh-Loud

1 hour ago, Donquizote said:

People are still going to stream his album regardless.

Sorry, but Pitchfork taste has been questionable lately and doesn't align with what GP want.

 

When have Pitchfork’s takes ever aligned with the GP? They love giving scores that counter passive music listeners just as much as they love rewarding great albums.

 

Pitchfork are very hit and miss but their ratio is a lot better than the GP, who have bad/bland taste 90% of the time.

1 hour ago, Brikenbur said:

I agree. They act is if they’re the pinnacle of music reviews. Didn’t it take them a few days to review Midnights, or at least give it a rating, but, reviews/rates this album in a matter of minutes 

Please u know damn well they got a copy Midnights or any high-profile albums days or weeks before the actual release

 

Articles are not written in a single day, as they have to go through the whole process of editing/approval. All these reviews sit on the desk of the Chief Editor days before it's supposed to go out. They just choose which day to publish it for maximum publicity/exposure

36 songs? damn

PANNED.

5 minutes ago, truthteller said:

36 songs? damn

Pitchfork continues its streak of accurate, honest reviews 

 

 

wtf 36 songs. 

3 hours ago, Donquizote said:

People are still going to stream his album regardless.

Sorry, but Pitchfork taste has been questionable lately and doesn't align with what GP want.

 

The GP stans gutter trash like Ed Sheeran and that Unholy song so who cares what they think is good

 

oh wow, they are already pressed  

Where's the PANNED gif?