charts discussion Final predictions (10/28): Taylor #1, 60+pts ahead of #2

[suburbannature]

2 minutes ago, Feanor said:

Honey.mp3 we are not using ifs and buts [2] or alternative scenarios.

 

AIWFCIY only reached #1 in the streaming era, that is the official course of history, and something I pointed out in my original post, but it's bothering you for some reason.

 

But your point is then rendered moot because the song had the points for #1 but was kept from it because of contemporaneous Billboard rules, the exact topic that was the genesis of this discussion (i.e. Billboard album equivalents rule).

 

It's also now moot because your claim was that it "only" reached that peak because of streaming when it would have done so pre-streaming without that Billboard exclusionary criteria.

 

Edited October 24, 2023 by suburbannature

[Life Savers]

3 minutes ago, Ger-55 said:

Back to the main purpose of this thread, which is difficult to remember, not everyone can...

 

 

Multi-week #1 smash 

[Feanor]

1 minute ago, suburbannature said:

It doesn't seem like logic is your strong suit, love. AIWFCIY would have topped the charts or have been top 2 at the very least 14 years before it did solely because of rule ineligiblity. You attempted to shoehorn a point and it didn't work. 

2 minutes ago, suburbannature said:

But your point is then rendered moot because the song had the points for #1 but was kept from it because of contemporaneous Billboard rules, the exact topic that was the genesis of this discussion (i.e. Billboard album equivalents rule).

 

It's also now moot because your claim was that it "only" reached that peak because of streaming when it would have done so pre-streaming without that Billboard exclusionary criteria.

 

 

All I'm hearing is what could have been if this and that happened, and no acknowledgement of what actually came to pass. I didn't need to shoehorn a point, cause official chart history already made that point for me: AIWFCIY only reached #1 in the streaming era.

 

And don't think I'm not noticing how you are conventionally not addressing the other point about MC only being Diamond-eligible thanks to streamings inclusion in RIAA. Any comments on that? Or are you now going to randomly bring up other Mariah albums that are not relevant to this discussion?

 

[Feanor]

 

10 minutes ago, Feanor said:

28 minutes ago, suburbannature said:

I know that's not a word you would be familiar with. You think the streaming era is what made AIWFCIY a classic when it had been for two decades prior to it reaching #1?  

Quote

suburbannature when things don't go his way: Makes up false statements that were never said or implied by the person he's accusing.

 

 

And while we're at it, are you ready to also address this point @suburbannature?

Can you please show me when I ever claimed AIWFCIY to be a classic thanks to streaming only? Cause I'm pretty certain of what I said,  which only leaves the option that you… put false words into my mouth to further your agenda? That seems very serious to me…

 

[suburbannature]

Just now, Feanor said:

 

All I'm hearing is what could have been if this and that happened, and no acknowledgement of what actually came to pass. I didn't need to shoehorn a point, cause official chart history already made that point for me: AIWFCIY only reached #1 in the streaming era.

 

And don't think I'm not noticing how you are conventionally not addressing the other point about MC only being Diamond-eligible thanks to streamings inclusion in RIAA. Any comments on that? Or are you now going to randomly bring up other Mariah albums that are not relevant to this discussion?

 

You're not using arbitrary measures that you didn't apply to yourself speaking about certifications that have not been awarded. In citing those, you used numbers that "qualify" them for it without the receipt. I did the same about AIWFCIY having "qualified" for #1 in 2005 but without receiving it due to a different factor. You can't have it both ways. 

 

I addressed your other point immediately. I felt it was shoehorned to discuss her Diamond album being thanks to streaming because it seemed to imply a). the album's achieved limited success pre-streaming and b.) that she would not have that type of career success without it. In reality, the album was already eligible for 6x platinum in the US (and continually recharting yearly) and had sold 15 million WW by the mid-2000s. It is #4 best-selling albums by a non-Asian artist in both Japan and all of Asia. And Mariah had achieved 2 Diamond albums and a 9x platinum album in physicals as well so it felt like a petty attempt for a shady moment too imply that Mariah and/or her holiday classics owed success to streaming when she had achieved these album stats several times over, the song was well-established as the modern classic, and the song had maintained its consistent success across consumption platforms. 

[Feanor]

8 minutes ago, suburbannature said:

You're not using arbitrary measures that you didn't apply to yourself speaking about certifications that have not been awarded. In citing those, you used numbers that "qualify" them for it without the receipt. I did the same about AIWFCIY having "qualified" for #1 in 2005 but without receiving it due to a different factor. You can't have it both ways. 

Ah, now we're confusing two separate things aren't we?

My post about "eligible" certifications was a direct reply to your estimate of what Taylor's "eligible" certifications were. So I used the same measure that you did, and we were on the same page.

 

With AIWFCIY, I used the official chart history of the song to which you tried and failed to counter with your own hypothesis about how it would/could have hit #1 in an alternative scenario. You did the same thing that you also did for Taylor's "eligible" certifications, but by that you failed to realize that I wasn't talking about theoretical outcomes anymore, I was talking facts and the fact is AIWFCIY reached #1 in the streaming era. And we should be happy that it did.

 

 

8 minutes ago, suburbannature said:

I addressed your other point immediately. I felt it was shoehorned to discuss her Diamond album being thanks to streaming because it seemed to imply a). the album's achieved limited success pre-streaming and b.) that she would not have that type of career success without it. In reality, the album was already eligible for 6x platinum in the US (and continually recharting yearly) and had sold 15 million WW by the mid-2000s. It is #4 best-selling albums by a non-Asian artist in both Japan and all of Asia. And Mariah had achieved 2 Diamond albums and a 9x platinum album in physicals as well so it felt like a petty attempt for a shady moment too imply that Mariah and/or her holiday classics owed success to streaming when she had achieved these album stats several times over, the song was well-established as the modern classic, and the song had maintained its consistent success across consumption platforms. 

Once again you bring up tons of stuff that is irrelevant here, make implications that were never there and find shadiness where none existed.

In October 2023, 'Merry Christmas' is eligible for Diamond because RIAA includes streaming for certifications, as it otherwise would not qualify for 10M units from just pure sales. This is not a dig, this is not a praise. This is a simply how the album is eligible for Diamond in 2023 - a factual observation. And boy, did it ruffle some feathers…

 

[suburbannature]

13 minutes ago, Feanor said:

Ah, now we're confusing two separate things aren't we?

My post about "eligible" certifications was a direct reply to your estimate of what Taylor's "eligible" certifications were. So I used the same measure that you did, and we were on the same page.

 

With AIWFCIY, I used the official chart history of the song to which you tried and failed to counter with your own hypothesis about how it would/could have hit #1 in an alternative scenario. You did the same thing that you also did for Taylor's "eligible" certifications, but by that you failed to realize that I wasn't talking about theoretical outcomes anymore, I was talking facts and the fact is AIWFCIY reached #1 in the streaming era. And we should be happy that it did.

 

 

Once again you bring up tons of stuff that is irrelevant here, make implications that were never there and find shadiness where none existed.

In October 2023, 'Merry Christmas' is eligible for Diamond because RIAA includes streaming for certifications, as it otherwise would not qualify for 10M units from just pure sales. This is not a dig, this is not a praise. This is a simply how the album is eligible for Diamond in 2023 - a factual observation. And boy, did it ruffle some feathers…

 

No, you're creating discretionary criteria to allow one "qualification" without allowing another, despite both being based in accessible public consumption data, for the sole reason that it diminishes your initial attempt. You think you're being slick but you're double-speaking and feigning innocence because your shadiness was rooted in a point that was invalid. You are dancing around the point - for obvious reasons - but it is factually incorrect to say that streaming is responsible for the song's annual return to the top of the charts (and assuming you mean the Hot 100 since it was topping Digital Chart, Holiday Chart, and Recurrent Chart annually before streaming) when the sole factor preventing that previously was not the degree of public consumption, not the platform, but the Billboard recurrent rule. 

 

What's irrelevant is equating one album that gained 4x platinum from its total of 10x platinum during the streaming era to an entire career peak driven by that skewed streaming formula. 

[PoisonedIvy]

What are y’all yapping about 

[Feanor]

2 minutes ago, suburbannature said:

No, you're creating discretionary criteria to allow one "qualification" without allowing another, despite both being based in accessible public consumption data, for the sole reason that it diminishes your initial attempt.

I didn't change the "qualification" of anything.  I responded to a how you were talking about eligible certifications, and then brought up AIWFCIY's official chart history in a manner that did not relate to how many cumulative certifications Taylor might have.

It's not my fault that you failed to differentiate between these things.

 

2 minutes ago, suburbannature said:

You think you're being slick but you're double-speaking and feigning innocence because your shadiness was rooted in a point that was invalid. You are dancing around the point - for obvious reasons - but it is factually incorrect to say that streaming is responsible for the song's annual return to the top of the charts (and assuming you mean the Hot 100 since it was topping Digital Chart, Holiday Chart, and Recurrent Chart annually before streaming) when the sole factor preventing that previously was not the degree of public consumption, not the platform, but the Billboard recurrent rule. 

So… AIWFCIY did factually not reach #1 prior to the streaming era, so let's thank the streaming era once again for giving us this #1.

 

 

2 minutes ago, suburbannature said:

What's irrelevant is equating one album that gained 4x platinum from its total of 10x platinum during the streaming era to an entire career peak driven by that skewed streaming formula. 

Well, looks like you are agreeing with my point about how MC is Diamond eligible thanks to streaming only. We are finally on the same page again.