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

[UnusualBoy]

Maybe, what it's truth is that streaming really inflates the success of the albums nowadays and their longevity and make them seem bigger than what they really are. 

[byzantium]

59 minutes ago, PopThatCorn said:

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.

 

 

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.

 

This is quite a gross oversimplification of the differences between eras of the music industry.  One obvious example is your analysis would assume that one single sale is equivalent to one album sale. Because it is still untimely people spending money to buy a record.  And given this analysis, Rihanna was more successful than Michael Jackson.

[CaptainMusic]

8 minutes ago, byzantium said:

This is quite a gross oversimplification of the differences between eras of the music industry.  One obvious example is your analysis would assume that one single sale is equivalent to one album sale. Because it is still untimely people spending money to buy a record.  And given this analysis, Rihanna was more successful than Michael Jackson.

Except Rih didn't sell physical singles, she sold digital singles which are completely different to the albums (and physical singles) MJ sold. 

[Jay07]

34 minutes ago, byzantium said:

This is quite a gross oversimplification of the differences between eras of the music industry.  One obvious example is your analysis would assume that one single sale is equivalent to one album sale. Because it is still untimely people spending money to buy a record.  And given this analysis, Rihanna was more successful than Michael Jackson.

What sort of "analysis" suggests paying 3 dollars is equal to spending 20?

[Selegend]

Idk what they should or shouldn't do but it's crystal clear that it's way easier to have longevity now. 

Just think about the fact that a lot of people that are streaming SOS are streaming since the month it was released. 

Now think about pure sales, people bought Michael album on release month and kept listening it for YEARS. It didn't matter, even with the fact that they listened it for years all it counted was that 1 copy bought on release month. 

So the fact that he was able to stay that many time on BB's top 10 meant that more people (different people) wanted to buy his album. 

when the subject is streaming, it can mean more people ofc but it ALSO can mean that the same people are still streaming it all the time. not that more and more people are discovering it. 

Of course SOS is extremely successful but when it comes to longevity it's truly not the same thing. it's way easier now.

 

Edited May 20 by Selegend

[glitch]

7 hours ago, Patient Zero said:

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. 

Well no because those streams would get filtered out. Not to mention the fact that muted streams don't count and there's a cap on the number of streams that will be counted per day from a given user

[bad guy]

I mean even if SOS took that record from Thriller the GP would still think Thriller has that record. Modern Billboard records just don't matter as much anymore and don't really get any news coverage anyway in a social media world.

 

Obviously still a major moment for SZA but none of it matters anymore with streaming since it's much easier now to never hear a juggernaut era unlike in the 80s where big eras were inescapable.

[Jay07]

1 minute ago, bad guy said:

I mean even if SOS took that record from Thriller the GP would still think Thriller has that record. Modern Billboard records just don't matter as much anymore and don't really get any news coverage anyway in a social media world.

 

Obviously still a major moment for SZA but none of it matters anymore with streaming since it's much easier now to never hear a juggernaut era unlike in the 80s where big eras were inescapable.

Yeah that's a good point. Blockbuster eras in the 80s and 90s would last for years with 6-7 singles, multiple performances, tours, music videos. Now albums just keep chugging along with no promo so their cultural impact is severely diminished. 

[byzantium]

53 minutes ago, CaptainMusic said:

Except Rih didn't sell physical singles, she sold digital singles which are completely different to the albums (and physical singles) MJ sold. 

This is feeding into my point. 

[byzantium]

28 minutes ago, Jay07 said:

What sort of "analysis" suggests paying 3 dollars is equal to spending 20?

So if someone pays less for music it counts less?  We should probably take that into account comparing vinyl, cassettes and CDs shouldn't we?

[Jay07]

2 minutes ago, byzantium said:

So if someone pays less for music it counts less?  We should probably take that into account comparing vinyl, cassettes and CDs shouldn't we?

You realize there are separate singles and album charts right? 

 

Also, can you point me to the the single that costs as much as an album? Only Gaga did that and her achievement forever has an asterisk.

[dirrtydiana]

38 minutes ago, Jay07 said:

What sort of "analysis" suggests paying 3 dollars is equal to spending 20?

With inflation those $20 from back then are more like $35 today 

[John Slayne]

yes especially when it comes to chart records, it's definitely a lot easier to have longevity on BB200 today than it was in the 80s. which makes MJ's record even more impressive, like the fact that he still holds it 40 years later is insane

[bielneira]

It makes sense, but it's a record on Billboard charts, so SZA is indeedclose to break it. She will never surpass Thriller's sales tho

Edited May 20 by bielneira

[Jay07]

The thing is, it's nice that she will be breaking the record and SZA is a great artist but I'm sure none of her fans will come out to claim she has surpassed MJ just because she broke his record because of a different sales climate like certain other delusional fandoms.

[PopThatCorn]

4 hours ago, byzantium said:

This is quite a gross oversimplification of the differences between eras of the music industry.  One obvious example is your analysis would assume that one single sale is equivalent to one album sale. Because it is still untimely people spending money to buy a record.  And given this analysis, Rihanna was more successful than Michael Jackson.

Well yeah it's a simplification, it's a short response to a short post.

 

This topic is about the differences between albums in the physical (Thriller) vs streaming (SOS) era and how it impacts chart runs.

 

So absolutely nothing to do with comparing Rihanna and Michael Jackson's record sales(?) Nor does it make sense to compare their record sales when the majority of MJ's record sales are physical albums and the vast majority of Rihanna's record sales are digital singles. And regardless of format, singles have always been cheaper than albums. An artist that sells 100 million albums should absolutely be viewed differently than an artist that sells the same amount but in singles.

 

People once had to leave their house, walk or drive to a shop, find the album, and checkout. Then yes, they paid for the specific song or album. They now owned it and could bring it home to play for however many times they wanted.

 

(If they were looking to buy a physical single, it was possibly not available to buy because it was sold out, there was only a limited amount pressed, or the label opted not to release it physically at all.)

 

In the digital era, there was still a purchase but it was significantly cheaper and way more accessible. You could buy nearly any song (single, album track, entire album) from your bed and play it instantly.

 

Does this mean digital sales are automatically less valid? No. But we can and should acknowledge that the physical era was very different.

 

Just like we should acknowledge the difference between sales (physical and even digital) and streaming.

 

Now, there is no "purchase" involved at all. People are essentially listening to music for free or renting every song that exists for a small monthly fee. And every play gets counted unless it is flagged as spam etc. So once again, we should acknowledge these differences when comparing artists of different eras.