base talk Should the records/achievements from the streaming era be separated?

[XtiRih]

In 2000, a platinum single meant a smash hit

Today, a non-single can be multi-platinum

 

I mean come on

[wantedyoutogrow]

what some of y'all fail to realise is that if streaming didn't exist and we were still in the CD/vinyl era the albums that are successful now will still be successful

[Feanor]

No, it just influences the longevity of the albums on the chart, as streaming is a better metric to measure the long-term consumption of albums than instant sales.

But it doesn't influence the success of the album itself. Even with the increased chart longevity, 'SOS' is "only" at like 5M units in the US while 'Thriller' is at like 30M, and the difference in global units is even bigger. Not to mention that almost all of the dozens upon dozens of diamond certified albums are from the pre-streaming era. In the past 10 years or so where streaming has really taken off, there have been only 3 albums that are Diamond(-eligible) afaik. 

This is why units ultimately paint a far more accurate picture than chart longevity, and streaming has not led to albums suddenly gaining way more units than albums of the past.

 

Edited May 20 by Feanor

[Rev8]

Yes.

 

 

Wtf is with these think-pieces?
Ofc it should

 

 

Music charts/climates/etc are super different, even decade to decade

[ontherocks]

Finally Britney & Christina stans can agree on something

 

[JC.]

In the case of the OP, I don't think it matters. An album legacy isn't affected by a Billboard record. Thriller was on the charts before I was born and we are still talking about it today, that's the true legacy. 

Although if Thriller was released today and had the same achievement as it did back then, it probably would've been on the charts longer because the singles run were very strong. 

[Punky Rooster]

Of course. Everyone has heard of Thriller, people probably think SOS is a Rihanna song.

[byzantium]

If you want to do this, you should do this for every era:

 

vinyl era

cassette era

CD era

digital era

Streaming era.  
 

The fact that some of you get all up in arms about the streaming era but not the others is mostly just because you are upset that current artists are as successful if not more than some of your favs from the past. 

[tomo]

1 hour ago, XtiRih said:

In 2000, a platinum single meant a smash hit

Today, a non-single can be multi-platinum

 

I mean come on

That, is because label/artists had to pick the single to release and send to radio.

 

The smashes back then were handpicked by artists/labels. 

 

On the SOS & Thriller comparison though, I don't think streaming made SOS look bigger, it's accurate. It's just that Thriller was bigger than it looks than its chart run.

[Funnyfatty]

1 hour ago, Arrows said:

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.

And my mother has madonna albums physically that she was listening for years. None of that is counted just 1 pure sale is. 

[Katy V.!]

2 hours ago, Space Cowboy said:

 

 

Thoughts?

This tweet is embarrassingly dumb and has nothing to do with the actual topic

 

SOS is close to matching Thriller Top10 weeks aka being one of the Top10 most consumed album during its release, it's not about sales or streams

 

Imagine thinking that there are no popular albums because you don't have to go to a physical store to buy it

[dumbsparce]

I don't think so. Chart methodologies have, for the most part, always adjusted to reflect what is popular. Thriller being in the top 10 for 100 weeks during the physicals

era doesn't mean it was more popular than any album matching that in the digital/streaming era bc their respective competitors played under the same rules as they did. SOS potentially surpassing that achievement doesn't mean it's more successful either. Thriller has been a consistent seller for 40 years.. it relied on its longevity to become the best selling album o.a.t. SOS is not even 2 years old.

[LosingHimWasBlue]

2 hours ago, ontherocks said:

ATRLers serving 80year olds 

 

2 hours ago, concubine said:

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.

This is not a group project, hunny 

[badgirlriri]

Completely agreed, I'm glad more are saying it

Edited May 20 by badgirlriri

[Don]

idk how else they should do it but it is kinda weird to say streaming an album x amount of time is the same as buying one ... it's just not true 

[dirrtydiana]

On atrl it should be common knowledge how streaming and also digital made it infinitely easier and almost free to get these numbers and chart spots

 

for the common folk, the huge asterisk should be made visible next to numbers achieved non by pure sales and due to the streaming era and tactics. 

[cuteboyzay]

Yes, it should lmaooo!!!

 

And the people disagreeing just want to continue boasting about their para-social accomplishments their fave makes so they can continue feeling better about THEMSELVES 

 

There's nothing bad about being aware enough to know that the music industry is literally the COMPLETE OPPOSITE than it was in regards to sales. Touring is relatively the same though, just more expensive. But yeah they should be separated, and accomplishments should still be praised. But this time, people will just have to find another way to praise their fave's accomplishments without constantlyyyy having to compare their faves albums to bonafide classics that were made like 30years ago.

Edited May 20 by cuteboyzay

[cuteboyzay]

40 minutes ago, LosingHimWasBlue said:

 

This is not a group project, hunny 

You're right. One has the talent the other one has 400 versions of the same flat note on Vinyl. Def not a group project. 
 

Put the pipe down honey, it's not a cute look. 

[Erreur2 La Nature]

Of course. It makes zero sense to compare past sales and achievements to those from the streaming era. 

[PopThatCorn]

6 hours ago, wantedyoutogrow said:

what some of y'all fail to realise is that if streaming didn't exist and we were still in the CD/vinyl era the albums that are successful now will still be successful

Yes, they would still be successful. But they wouldn't be AS successful on the charts. That's the point people are trying to make.

 

Now, nearly every single play is accounted for since music is so accessible. Before, tons of albums were purchased second hand, borrowed, rented from shops and libraries.... Yet only the first original sale was counted.

 

And don't forget how many million compilation and soundtrack albums were sold. Now, it doesn't matter what album you stream a song from, it all contributes to the overall consumption of the song and the artist who performs it. 

 

There's a reason why every chart record will eventually be broken. It is even worse for singles considering record labels would press limited amounts of cd singles in the 90s and early 2000s (or not release a physical single at all). Prior to more accurate technology in the 90s, the single charts were extremely fast moving because once a song peaked, labels would encourage shops to stop reporting the song as a best seller so their next single could be promoted.

 

So the potential success of many hit songs and albums was literally capped while now it's endless.

 

 

6 hours ago, byzantium said:

If you want to do this, you should do this for every era:

 

vinyl era

cassette era

CD era

digital era

Streaming era.  
 

The fact that some of you get all up in arms about the streaming era but not the others is mostly just because you are upset that current artists are as successful if not more than some of your favs from the past. 

Vinyl era = people spend money and purchase an album once

Cassette era = people spend money and purchase an album once

CD era = people spend money and purchase an album once

 

Streaming era = music is free or extremely cheap and every play contributes to an album or song's consumption

 

Do you see the difference?

 

Also separating those different formats into eras doesn't make sense for this conversation anyways. Many of those formats coexisted or heavily overlapped. Are we going to discuss the 8-track "era" as well? The bottom line is that album and single consumption during the physical era was very different from now.

 

[badgirlriri]

4 hours ago, Feanor said:

No, it just influences the longevity of the albums on the chart, as streaming is a better metric to measure the long-term consumption of albums than instant sales.

But it doesn't influence the success of the album itself. Even with the increased chart longevity, 'SOS' is "only" at like 5M units in the US while 'Thriller' is at like 30M, and the difference in global units is even bigger. Not to mention that almost all of the dozens upon dozens of diamond certified albums are from the pre-streaming era. In the past 10 years or so where streaming has really taken off, there have been only 3 albums that are Diamond(-eligible) afaik. 

This is why units ultimately paint a far more accurate picture than chart longevity, and streaming has not led to albums suddenly gaining way more units than albums of the past.

 

This is a moot point when the streaming era will end with far more diamond records than in the past, and this is an undebatable fact, it doesnt matter how long it takes to occur (although the speed is rapidly speeding up each year). 

 

Ultimately the fairest thing to do would be to have all-time pure lists and all-time streaming lists. Nobody would be hurt in the process. 

[XDNA]

The formula should change. Maybe BB can make paid streams count a lot more than free streams. Also require more streams to equal an album sale. 

[JT55331]

5 hours 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. 

thisssssssss

Edited May 20 by JT55331

[pisuke]

Absoluely. Streaming is a scam.

[brenda-walsh]

no it shouldn't. every era of music consumption has their own strenghts.

 

i'm sure 15 years ago at the height of iTunes people were complaining that x song being in the top 10 for 25 weeks didn't mean it was bigger than y song released in the 80s because back then you had to pay $5 for a CD single at a store vs $1.29 for a digital single on your iPod

 

the charts are really just reflective of the time period and people forget that. obviously achievements from 30 years ago are not going to mean the same thing they did nowadays and vice versa