In the digital era, if a megastar like Adele or Lady Gaga decided to release a short single consisting of the sound of a fart, be it their own, it would get uploaded onto YouTube. Fans and the GP would quickly check out WTF it was but would most likely not choose to purchase it via iTunes. The "song" would not chart at all or chart very low. People checking out the fart would not increase their overall career sales. 

 

In the streaming era, if megastar like Taylor Swift or Bad Bunny decided to release a short single consisting of the sound of a fart, be it their own, it would be available on Spotify and YouTube. Fans and the GP would quickly check out WTF it was but would most likely not choose to purchase it via iTunes or through a store. The "song" would chart very high and could even go #1. People checking out the fart would help increase their overall career sales. 

 

Someone's curiosity of a song of someone they don't support (be it Justin Timberlake in this case) in the digital era or the physical era would do zero for him chart-wise and for his total sales. Someone's plain curiosity if even to hate will be counted towards the chart performance and the overall popularity sales of said artist in the streaming era. 

 

So when discussing why the sales of a Bad Bunny can't be compared to the sales of a Eminem or the sales of a Taylor Swift can't be compared to the sales of a Madonna be sure to use The FART Theory as explanation. The whole equation is inspired by the popular saying. 

 

Discuss ladies 

 

someone get OP a percocet asap 

 

The intention of music charts has always been to measure general music consumption. Streaming makes it less prestigious but inarguably more accurate outside of a few extremely obvious cases of payola.

Idk

You could also argue if an artist released a fart quality album in the digital era, if it goes viral enough people will buy it when it's on discount for 3.99 or whatever to check it out.

They'll hate it, but it's still a sale. 

If they stream it and make it all the way through it's 0.01 sales. And they'd need to stream the fart quality album in full 99 more times to get a sale. (Very unlikely)

 

 

Streaming is less impressive than actual sales, it always will be. 

In the digital era, desperate acts can sell their albums for less than the price of a McChicken AND have the sales actually count and debut close to a million but chart less than 4 weeks in the top 10.

Fraud like that cannot happen in the streaming era.

2 minutes ago, Miss Americana said:

In the digital era, desperate acts can sell their albums for less than the price of a McChicken AND have the sales actually count and debut close to a million but chart less than 4 weeks in the top 10.

Fraud like that cannot happen in the streaming era.

Um, purchases still take place and discounting singles and releasing remixes that are also discounted will help chart better. So you're wrong. 

Edited March 21, 20242 yr by BrandNewBrandon

But it has been also a practice since the digital era for fans to buy stuff from their faves without listening to them first. 

9 minutes ago, Sheep said:

The intention of music charts has always been to measure general music consumption. Streaming makes it less prestigious but inarguably more accurate outside of a few extremely obvious cases of payola.

Yes, it makes it more accurate. But the point of THE FART THEORY is to not compare today's sales to those of the past when much of the general music consumption was unaccounted for. 

Edited March 21, 20242 yr by BrandNewBrandon

It depends on the scenario. Album units are harder during the streaming era, while singles have major longevity and huge units. The best selling song in the US is at 9m pure sales while in SPS it's at 20m units. 

Edited March 21, 20242 yr by VioletsandRoses

Just now, Jude said:

But it has been also a practice since the digital era for fans to buy stuff from their faves without listening to them first. 

The OP refers to passbyers who are curious, not fans. For example, if Taylor releases a new song today, a lot of people will go and check it out of curiosity because it's completely free and easy to do so, not particularly because they like her. In the digital era, passbyers are not likely to purchase a single if they are not interested in the artist

FARTS >>> Chromatica 

1 minute ago, OrgVisual said:

The OP refers to passbyers who are curious, not fans. For example, if Taylor releases a new song today, a lot of people will go and check it out of curiosity because it's completely free and easy to do so, not particularly because they like her. In the digital era, passbyers are not likely to purchase a single if they are not interested in the artist

THIS. 

 

Not most misunderstanding THE FART THEORY  A megastar like the ones I mentioned will have way more curious listeners than fans and stans so they will do a lot more to the overall sales in the streaming era and would contribute to zero in the digital era. 

5 minutes ago, VioletsandRoses said:

It depends on the scenario. Album units are harder during the streaming era, while singles have major longevity and huge units. The best selling song in the US is at 9m pure sales while in SPS it's at 20m units. 

But listening to a song purely will help the album. Listening or purchasing a song in the digital era did NOT help the album. 

Edited March 21, 20242 yr by BrandNewBrandon

Just now, BrandNewBrandon said:

Um, purchases still take place and discounting singles and releasing remixes that are also discounted will help chart better. So you're wrong. 

This ain't 2020 anymore where certain acts sold ticket bundles and jockstraps to barely crack 250k.

All that fraudulent **** has been patched out.

That **** doesn't work anymore and the same desperate act will debut with like 100k today.

 

We are in the era of vinyl for album sales.

You can try and twist it all you want but nobody can defraud that 50 dollar purchases.

This what Ice Spice was rappin about

In the digital era Taylor Swift released 8 seconds of white noise on iTunes and it went #1 on iTunes in Canada.

Not much different to now.

 

Spoiler

they removed it quickly so I don't think it charted on weekly charts

 

This is why, despite all the temptation from buzz on ATRL, I never streamed J.Lo's album, and I won't be streaming Justin's or Camila's albums either. As curious as I am to how they sound, and as much as I'd like to drag artists from an educated point of view, there are just some artists that aren't worth the streams or the time of day to me. 

1 minute ago, Miss Americana said:

This ain't 2020 anymore where certain acts sold ticket bundles and jockstraps to barely crack 250k.

All that fraudulent **** has been patched out.

That **** doesn't work anymore and the same desperate act will debut with like 100k today.

 

We are in the era of vinyl for album sales.

You can try and twist it all you want but nobody can defraud that 50 dollar purchases.

This entire thread went over you head sis. I don't know what issues you've got with Lady Gaga but leave it out of this thread. 

1 minute ago, Miss Americana said:

This ain't 2020 anymore where certain acts sold ticket bundles and jockstraps to barely crack 250k.

All that fraudulent **** has been patched out.

That **** doesn't work anymore and the same desperate act will debut with like 100k today.

 

We are in the era of vinyl for album sales.

You can try and twist it all you want but nobody can defraud that 50 dollar purchases.

but for me it's still fraudulent because what's the point of buying 5 different vinyls of the same album? In the end you just forget about them and stream the stuff on Spotify/AM. But hey, you helped inflate the REAL demand stats of your fave

1 minute ago, BrandNewBrandon said:

This entire thread went over you head sis. I don't know what issues you've got with Lady Gaga but leave it out of this thread. 

Taylor released a fart in 2014 and it actually went #1 as someone already posted above.

So, your entire thread is moot anyways.

Time to delete and post some other useless flame bait thread .

https://www.businessinsider.com/taylor-swift-accidentally-released-a-song-that-was-8-seconds-of-static-and-it-shot-to-1-on-the-charts-2014-10

 

1 minute ago, Miss Americana said:

Taylor released a fart in 2014 and it actually went #1 as someone already posted above.

So, your entire thread is moot anyways.

Time to delete and post some other useless flame bait thread .

https://www.businessinsider.com/taylor-swift-accidentally-released-a-song-that-was-8-seconds-of-static-and-it-shot-to-1-on-the-charts-2014-10

 

The song didn't go #1 on the Hot 100 and didn't make curious people buy it. If it were released in the streaming era, most people would check out a controversial song like that - along with her devoted fans - and it would chart much better. That's the point. 

2 minutes ago, unclefloprry said:

but for me it's still fraudulent because what's the point of buying 5 different vinyls of the same album? In the end you just forget about them and stream the stuff on Spotify/AM. But hey, you helped inflate the REAL demand stats of your fave

Britney's label refused to sell singles and the only way to listen to the single is to buy the album. 90% of the GP who bought the cd maybe listened to the single twice and then forgot and didn't bother to listen to the rest of the album.

But hey, they helped inflate the REAL demand stats of your fave

3 minutes ago, unclefloprry said:

but for me it's still fraudulent because what's the point of buying 5 different vinyls of the same album? In the end you just forget about them and stream the stuff on Spotify/AM. But hey, you helped inflate the REAL demand stats of your fave

You're buying ONE copy and then stream it at home. So the sale is 1 physical album + units from the streaming of that same album at home through Spotify = more sales. 

 

Buying ONE copy meant 1 sale in the past.