makeawish Posted May 20 Posted May 20 there's a sense in which they're a different thing, in that we basically have a plays chart with a few sales added on now rather than a sales chart like the pre-2010s. but i don't see that as a lesser thing, a lot of records got bought in the old days that were not really played more than once or twice, at least we know someone is actually listening to these songs now (it may sometimes be a bot farm but they're putting the effort in and i think that's beautiful) 1
Peak Now Posted May 20 Posted May 20 Thing is in the past there was no other (legal) way to listen to a song without "standing up" and buying the album, and both casual fans and stans alike were "forced" to contribute to artists' pure sales. There's really no way to get around that. 2 1
Patient Zero Posted May 20 Posted May 20 (edited) Yeah, it's totally different. You can stream an album in a loop the whole day and not even listen to it. But those streams still count for the certifications. This streaming era really inflated some artists fame. It's a sham. Edited May 20 by Patient Zero 6 7
Saintlor Posted May 20 Posted May 20 Is it an argument to make that more people are listening to music more than ever now, so an album that doesn't feel as big as Thriller like SOS could actually be bigger and more consumed?
OrgVisual Posted May 20 Posted May 20 6 minutes ago, Patient Zero said: Yeah, it's totally different. You can stream an album in a loop the whole day and not even listen to it. But those streams still count for the certifications. This streaming era really inflated some artists fame. It's a sham. Not to mention all people who bought CDs/Vinyls nowadays would still stream the album nonstop on Spotify etc. => meaning their consumption is double-counted Also, in the past, once you purchased an album, you would not purchase it again => meaning your consumption is only counted for that particular week Nowadays, you can stream an album every day => meaning your consumption can be counted for the entire chart run of that album 2
OrgVisual Posted May 20 Posted May 20 5 minutes ago, Saintlor said: Is it an argument to make that more people are listening to music more than ever now, so an album that doesn't feel as big as Thriller like SOS could actually be bigger and more consumed? I don't think SOS is bigger (stats-wise), but moreso about albums in the streaming era have better longevity (as explained in the above post about how your consumption is now counted for the album's entire chart run instead of only 1 particular week) 1
CaptainMusic Posted May 20 Posted May 20 5 minutes ago, Saintlor said: Is it an argument to make that more people are listening to music more than ever now, so an album that doesn't feel as big as Thriller like SOS could actually be bigger and more consumed? …Do you seriously think SOS is close to Thriller's success let alone bigger - Yes, I'm all for streaming but it's a lot easier to have longevity now. With how dominant Thriller was back then it would've definitely done more weeks in the top 10 than that with streaming. 1
Mephisto Posted May 20 Posted May 20 Yes they should. It makes no sense to compare sales from the CD/Vinyl/cassette era with current "units". The consumption is completely different, it's like apples and oranges. 1
Arrows Posted May 20 Posted May 20 10 minutes ago, Patient Zero said: Yeah, it's totally different. You can stream an album in a loop the whole day and not even listen to it. But those streams still count for the certifications. This streaming era really inflated some artists fame. It's a sham. My parents had hundreds of CD's they only ever listened to once or twice. They got them as gifts, bought them randomly because they knew the artist or because they read a good review. Streaming is much more fair to show what music is actually being listened to. 1 2
KingWitch Posted May 20 Posted May 20 I have to agree, even when it comes to counting "total records sold", 90's acts get like 80% of their total records from albums while post 90's have 80% being digital singles (which cost like $1.29 compared to CD's which were like $15). They should definitely have some sort of separation because one weighs more than the other.
halcyonday Posted May 20 Posted May 20 i mean, of course it's way easier to get longevity these days like how Levitating is the longest charting song in the US too like lol, love that song but it def didn't deserve that 1
Peak Now Posted May 20 Posted May 20 I mean it's definitely true that streaming era albums/singles have longer longevity but what's the fix? A UK-style ACR mechanism? Like it or not people just stream the same **** more often these days. I don't think it's Billboard or anyone else's job to misrepresent this to bring it more in line of whatever the 80s or 90s were up to. Also note that airplay was also higher in proportion than the current day in those eras, and we all know how organic airplay was/is 2
Peak Now Posted May 20 Posted May 20 3 minutes ago, halcyonday said: like how Levitating is the longest charting song in the US too like lol, love that song but it def didn't deserve that It's Heat Waves actually which is probably not much better
halcyonday Posted May 20 Posted May 20 1 minute ago, AndThenTheCocaine said: It's Heat Waves actually which is probably not much better Oh, my bad. I guess it's more what wiki says: Quote It set new records as the song by a female artist with the most weeks spent in the top ten and the longest-charting song by a female artist on the Billboard Hot 100, spending 41 weeks in the top ten and 77 weeks on the chart overall.
Mordecai Posted May 20 Posted May 20 Yes The streaming era is a far more accurate representation of what people are actually listening to which equals greater longevity It's unfair to compare that to a metric where music is purchased once and that's the only contribution a person can make to the charts I also think the double counting of sales to a single and an album is fraudulent. The streams of any singles released prior to the album shouldn't count towards the album's units as those streams were not being made within the context of the album 3
KatyPrismSpirit Posted May 20 Posted May 20 No. This is just how people consume music now and that is reflected through the charts.
KatyPrismSpirit Posted May 20 Posted May 20 (edited) 11 minutes ago, halcyonday said: i mean, of course it's way easier to get longevity these days like how Levitating is the longest charting song in the US too like lol, love that song but it def didn't deserve that isnt that heat waves? Edited May 20 by KatyPrismSpirit
concubine Posted May 20 Posted May 20 (edited) No, because some artists have succeeded in both, like Taylor and Bey. And it will be used as an excuse/scapegoat.. certain artists are never seeing the charts or success again, regardless if the streaming era never began. Edited May 20 by concubine 1
Jay07 Posted May 20 Posted May 20 45 minutes ago, Space Cowboy said: Thoughts? It's wild to me that people are counting free streams the same as buying a 20 dollar CD that people would then play 1000 times. Steams can and are easily manipulated by unhinged fanbases but at the end of the day, these records only matter to pop stans. The legacy and impact the legends have had on people's lives cannot be quantified like that. 2 1
Recommended Posts