official chart HDD Final: #1 DJ Khaled 150k SPS; #2 ID 148k SPS

[iHype.]

31 minutes ago, Jackson said:

I agree with @Kkamjong. If you need to stream a significant portion of a song for it to count as a song stream, you should have to stream a significant amount of an album for it to count as an album stream. At least 1/3 of the album. I know there's no way in place to measure this right now, but it can't be difficult to implement 

That literally just sounds silly and ridiculous. Rules on rules on top of rules to measure popularity.

 

"You must stream ___ amount of songs from an album, in order to count for an album stream, then ____ streams counts as an album sale"

 

DJ Khaled has two top 5 hits right now. If this was 1997, then people would be in masses at the store buying his album and many of them would only be listening to those 2 songs. I mean that's the same time Titanic went Diamond for having an album with 14 instrumental tracks and 1 song that had lyrics which was #1 hit "My Heart Will Go On".

 

The Billboard 200 measures the overall popularity of a project. If an album has more purchases, track sales, and streams combined than any other album then it is the #1 most popular project currently. It's simple.

[DELE2125]

On 6/28/2017 at 3:08 PM, alexanderao said:

It makes the chart inaccurate by disadvantaging artists whose audiences predominantly stream! We have observed countless albums this year–More Life, CTRL, American Teen, True To Self, I Decided., FUTURE, just to give a few high-profile examples–have more than half of their units come from SEA for the entirety of their chart runs. Under your policy, these albums would have their unit totals artificially altered simply because of the way they obtained their units, which is asinine. It problematically implies that units gained from SEA are illegitimate and inferior to units gained from TEA and album sales.

 

I would like to know what you want to do about the problem that you think exists with hit singles boosting the performances of albums (which is something that has occurred for as long as the industry has existed). Would you want to implement a system where your streams only count if you listen to the full album, uninterrupted? Then you're going to miss people who listen to half the album, or three-quarters of the album, or even seven-eighths of the album. Would you want to not count streams of any singles? Then no one's going to release any singles anymore because they'd kill their parent albums on the chart. If you really think you have a proposal that would increase the accuracy of the chart, I want to hear it.

 

Just as the Hot 100 uses multiple criteria to measure the most popular songs of the week, the Billboard 200 now uses multiple criteria to measure the most popular albums of the week. This has been the case for two and a half years now. Billboard still compiles a Top Album Sales chart which only takes sales into account, and you can look at that chart if you want to. But the BB200 evolved because BB recognized that incorporating streaming into the chart was imperative to maintaining the chart's accuracy in today's music industry.

All I see you is wholeheartily defending urban acts (maybe because that's your favorite type of music), but where do you leave Rock, Country, Jazz, Classic, among other types of music that DO NOT benefit AT ALL from streaming? I mean, for those artists, the way Billboard is currently weighing the points for the BB200 is "problematic" as well. Why don't you take that into account in your analysis? I believe streaming holds WAY too much power in the albums charts right now, and I understand that sales have decreased dramatically, but then again, there are A LOT of music genres that are not consumed significantly via streaming. Moreover, the INFLATION coming from the streams of two songs, even sometimes ONE SONG only (see Uptown's Special) driving the whole body of work is just distorted to say the least. All that tells you is that people are ONLY interested in one single and are not here for the album. In my most humble opinion, they need to FIX that.

[dussymob]

25 minutes ago, iHype. said:

That literally just sounds silly and ridiculous. Rules on rules on top of rules to measure popularity.

 

"You must stream ___ amount of songs from an album, in order to count for an album stream, then ____ streams counts as an album sale"

 

DJ Khaled has two top 5 hits right now. If this was 1997, then people would be in masses at the store buying his album and many of them would only be listening to those 2 songs. I mean that's the same time Titanic went Diamond for having an album with 14 instrumental tracks and 1 song that had lyrics which was #1 hit "My Heart Will Go On".

 

The Billboard 200 measures the overall popularity of a project. If an album has more purchases, track sales, and streams combined than any other album then it is the #1 most popular project currently. It's simple.

If Drake wasn't benefitting from this your opinion would be different.

[iHype.]

3 minutes ago, dussymob said:

If Drake wasn't benefitting from this your opinion would be different.

Me: posts facts

You: posts (fake) scenarios

 

I've consistently supported Streaming since 2014 before it was even included in the albums chart.

 

[Lady Claire]

3 hours ago, Kkamjong said:

The people still BOUGHT THE ALBUM. There is HUGE difference in one hit driving album sales and one hit being streamed and misrepresented as album sales. 

 

Singles promote albums yes, but streaming a single should not contribute t album sales. It makes 0 sense. That's what the Hot 100 is for. There should be a minimum percentage of album tracks streamed for it to contribute to BB200. 

 

Someone listening to one hit song from an album (and ignoring the rest of the tracks) should not contribute to BB200 because they clearly did not give 2 ***** about the actual album but just the single. Which as said, is what the Hot 100 is for.

MTE.

 

[alexanderao]

8 minutes ago, DELE2125 said:

All I see you is wholeheartily defending urban acts (maybe because that's your favorite type of music), but where do you leave Rock, Country, Jazz, Classic, among other types of music that DO NOT benefit AT ALL from streaming? I mean, for those artists, the way Billboard is currently weighing the points for the BB200 is "problematic" as well. Why don't you take that into account in your analysis? I believe streaming holds WAY too much power in the albums charts right now, and I understand that sales have decreased dramatically, but then again, there are A LOT of music genres that are not consumed significantly via streaming. Moreover, the INFLATION coming from the streams of two songs, even sometimes ONE SONG only (see Uptown's Special) driving the whole body of work is just distorted to say the least. All that tells you is that people are ONLY interested in one single and are not here for the album. In my most humble opinion, they need to FIX that.

The majority of rock listeners buy albums. The majority of urban listeners stream albums. That's fine, and neither rock albums nor urban albums should be disadvantaged on the charts for the way they are consumed– and they aren't. But implementing some of the policy suggestions made over the course of the last few pages would, as I have detailed, disadvantage those albums that are mostly streamed. 

 

We've seen albums do very well on the chart this year with extremely low streaming– From a Room: Vol. 1 & Hardwired... to Self Destruct are good examples. If your album is popular, the chart is going to illustrate that, whether your fanbase only buys or whether it only streams.

 

Streaming's addition to the Billboard 200 did not punish those albums that are mostly bought; rather, it served to transform the chart into one that more accurately depicted the popularity of those albums that are mostly streamed.

[DELE2125]

30 minutes ago, iHype. said:

That literally just sounds silly and ridiculous. Rules on rules on top of rules to measure popularity.

 

"You must stream ___ amount of songs from an album, in order to count for an album stream, then ____ streams counts as an album sale"

 

DJ Khaled has two top 5 hits right now. If this was 1997, then people would be in masses at the store buying his album and many of them would only be listening to those 2 songs. I mean that's the same time Titanic went Diamond for having an album with 14 instrumental tracks and 1 song that had lyrics which was #1 hit "My Heart Will Go On".

 

The Billboard 200 measures the overall popularity of a project. If an album has more purchases, track sales, and streams combined than any other album then it is the #1 most popular project currently. It's simple.

People would also buy the physical single if they just cared for one single in particular. Not you implying that those people bought the WHOLE ALBUM just for "My Heart Will Go On"  Not saying the single didn't drive some album sales, but come on, now. Are we forgetting that said soundtrack was attached to the biggest film in HISTORY at the time?

 

And also, aren't we in 2017? Isn't Billboard supposed to be more accurate in measuring the cosumption of AN ALBUM today than 20 years ago? All I see in the formula we have now is streaming taking A LOT of points and one or two songs LITERALLY driving the whole album...

[Ash12345]

It'll be kinda annoying if DJ khaled blocks Imagine dragons with half the sales just because he collaborated with queen of pop rihanna.

He really doesn't deserve it.

[DELE2125]

1 minute ago, alexanderao said:

The majority of rock listeners buy albums. The majority of urban listeners stream albums. That's fine, and neither rock albums nor urban albums should be disadvantaged on the charts for the way they are consumed– and they aren't. But implementing some of the policy suggestions made over the course of the last few pages would, as I have detailed, disadvantage those albums that are mostly streamed. 

 

We've seen albums do very well on the chart this year with extremely low streaming– From a Room: Vol. 1 & Hardwired... to Self Destruct are good examples. If your album is popular, the chart is going to illustrate that, whether your fanbase only buys or whether it only streams.

 

Streaming's addition to the Billboard 200 did not punish those albums that are mostly bought; rather, it served to transform the chart into one that more accurately depicted the popularity of those albums that are mostly streamed.

Tell that to the Blake Shelton album that was alongside Ariana's blocked by Views, despite the latter selling like 1/3 of the others. It IS disadvantageous. I'm not suggesting any policy, but they surely need to work that out. A LOT of albums have been blocked from higher peaks in favor of albums that are driven by a couple of songs being streamed over and over again.

[Yves]

3 hours ago, Kkamjong said:

The people still BOUGHT THE ALBUM. There is HUGE difference in one hit driving album sales and one hit being streamed and misrepresented as album sales. 

 

Singles promote albums yes, but streaming a single should not contribute t album sales. It makes 0 sense. That's what the Hot 100 is for. There should be a minimum percentage of album tracks streamed for it to contribute to BB200. 

 

Someone listening to one hit song from an album (and ignoring the rest of the tracks) should not contribute to BB200 because they clearly did not give 2 ***** about the actual album but just the single. Which as said, is what the Hot 100 is for.

 

[iHype.]

13 minutes ago, DELE2125 said:

People would also buy the physical single if they just cared for one single in particular. Not you implying that those people bought the WHOLE ALBUM just for "My Heart Will Go On"  Not saying the single didn't drive some album sales, but come on, now. Are we forgetting that said soundtrack was attached to the biggest film in HISTORY at the time?

 

And also, aren't we in 2017? Isn't Billboard supposed to be more accurate in measuring the cosumption of AN ALBUM today than 20 years ago? All I see in the formula we have now is streaming taking A LOT of points and one or two songs LITERALLY driving the whole album...

1

A label would not have two physical singles out at once, nor especially during an album release lmao. That would literally set the album up to flop. ITO would probably have a single then it'd be removed once the album was out, then if anyone else forward wanted either song they'd buy the album. That is what most commonly happened. And yes, MHWGO is responsible for majority of Titanic's sales. It was only on sale for like 3 weeks (it's time at #1) then they refused to print anymore copies and the album sold a shitload because they did similar to as I mentioned.

 

"Isn't Billboard supposed to be more accurate in measuring the cosumption of AN ALBUM today than 20 years ago? All I see in the formula we have now is streaming taking A LOT of points and one or two songs LITERALLY driving the whole album..."

 

Most of the country streams now AND most music industry revenue comes from streaming. Accurately representing today compared to 20 years ago WOULD be having a chart with streaming in the front. Do research.

 

 

 

[DELE2125]

2 minutes ago, iHype. said:

A label would not have two physical singles out at once, nor especially during an album release lmao. That would literally set the album up to flop. ITO would probably have a single then it'd be removed once the album was out, then if anyone else forward wanted either song they'd buy the album. That is what most commonly happened. And yes, MHWGO is responsible for majority of Titanic's sales. It was only on sale for like 3 weeks (it's time at #1) then they refused to print anymore copies and the album sold a shitload because they did similar to as I mentioned.

 

"Isn't Billboard supposed to be more accurate in measuring the cosumption of AN ALBUM today than 20 years ago? All I see in the formula we have now is streaming taking A LOT of points and one or two songs LITERALLY driving the whole album..."

 

Most of the country streams now AND most music industry revenue comes from streaming. Accurately representing today compared to 20 years ago WOULD be having a chart with streaming in the front. Do research.

 

 

 

You're still not acknowledging the problematic situation of one or two songs driving a WHOLE album. It was flawed 20 years ago, it's still flawed now.

[alexanderao]

1 minute ago, DELE2125 said:

Tell that to the Blake Shelton album that was alongside Ariana's blocked by Views, despite the latter selling like 1/3 of the others. It IS disadvantageous. I'm not suggesting any policy, but they surely need to work that out. A LOT of albums have been blocked from higher peaks in favor of albums that are driven by a couple of songs being streamed over and over again.

It's not that the new chart was disadvantageous to Blake; it's that the old chart was disadvantageous to Drake. 

 

Blake's album did 170k units that week and sold 153k albums. The pre-SPS chart would have done a fine job illustrating its popularity because the vast majority of the album's consumers bought it. But because so many people streamed Views rather than bought it, the pre-SPS chart would have done a poor job illustrating its popularity because it would have only showed the activity of those who bought it.

 

It should be noted that of Views's 166.5M streams that week, only 30.9M of them (18.6%) came from its sole single, One Dance. 

[iHype.]

3 minutes ago, DELE2125 said:

You're still not acknowledging the problematic situation of one or two songs driving a WHOLE album. It was flawed 20 years ago, it's still flawed now.

And do you have proof of how many people aren't buying Imagine Dragons album because they heard 1-2 singles? 

 

An album's popularity is 90% of the time, dependent off getting hits. That's how it's always been.

[Sinister]

15 minutes ago, DELE2125 said:

People would also buy the physical single if they just cared for one single in particular. Not you implying that those people bought the WHOLE ALBUM just for "My Heart Will Go On"  Not saying the single didn't drive some album sales, but come on, now. Are we forgetting that said soundtrack was attached to the biggest film in HISTORY at the time?

 

And also, aren't we in 2017? Isn't Billboard supposed to be more accurate in measuring the cosumption of AN ALBUM today than 20 years ago? All I see in the formula we have now is streaming taking A LOT of points and one or two songs LITERALLY driving the whole album...

And you know what labels did??? Pulled the physical single to drive up album sales

 

Mariah's label did it with Cant Let Go (caused her to miss out on her 6th consecutive #1) so Emotions could sell more

 

MC Hammer's label did it with U Cant Touch This which is why the parent album is one of the best selling rap album of all time in the USA

 

 

[DELE2125]

2 minutes ago, alexanderao said:

It's not that the new chart was disadvantageous to Blake; it's that the old chart was disadvantageous to Drake. 

 

Blake's album did 170k units that week and sold 153k albums. The pre-SPS chart would have done a fine job illustrating its popularity because the vast majority of the album's consumers bought it. But because so many people streamed Views rather than bought it, the pre-SPS chart would have done a poor job illustrating its popularity because it would have only showed the activity of those who bought it.

 

It should be noted that of Views's 166.5M streams that week, only 30.9M of them (18.6%) came from its sole single, One Dance. 

Also, you're inferring that only Urban acts have been affected by the climate sales, but the thing is that ALL genres have been affected as well, but Urban has it's lifesaver, other genres only have the declining sales market.  So, in the old chart Blake would've sold more and he also would've been #1.

[Princedele25]

2 hours ago, Kkamjong said:

The people still BOUGHT THE ALBUM. There is HUGE difference in one hit driving album sales and one hit being streamed and misrepresented as album sales. 

 

Singles promote albums yes, but streaming a single should not contribute t album sales. It makes 0 sense. That's what the Hot 100 is for. There should be a minimum percentage of album tracks streamed for it to contribute to BB200. 

 

Someone listening to one hit song from an album (and ignoring the rest of the tracks) should not contribute to BB200 because they clearly did not give 2 ***** about the actual album but just the single. Which as said, is what the Hot 100 is for.

 

[DELE2125]

2 minutes ago, iHype. said:

And do you have proof of how many people aren't buying Imagine Dragons album because they heard 1-2 singles? 

 

An album's popularity is 90% of the time, dependent off getting hits. That's how it's always been.

No, and neither do you.

 

Where are you getting that 90% number from? Because as far as I know, nor the Metallica album, nor the Moana album, nor the Beauty and The Beast album, nor the Hamilton Cast album, nor the Chris Stapleton album, etc have had any hits, and that doesn't/didn't stop them from selling.

[Shizzy]

59 minutes ago, iHype. said:

That literally just sounds silly and ridiculous. Rules on rules on top of rules to measure popularity.

 

"You must stream ___ amount of songs from an album, in order to count for an album stream, then ____ streams counts as an album sale"

 

DJ Khaled has two top 5 hits right now. If this was 1997, then people would be in masses at the store buying his album and many of them would only be listening to those 2 songs. I mean that's the same time Titanic went Diamond for having an album with 14 instrumental tracks and 1 song that had lyrics which was #1 hit "My Heart Will Go On".

 

The Billboard 200 measures the overall popularity of a project. If an album has more purchases, track sales, and streams combined than any other album then it is the #1 most popular project currently. It's simple.

This is a completely valid point. I purchased so many albums back in the day and never made it past track #3  

[fridayteenage]

How does the UK do it again, not counting the top 2 or 3 songs or something like that?

[iHype.]

7 minutes ago, DELE2125 said:

No, and neither do you.

 

Where are you getting that 90% number from? Because as far as I know, nor the Metallica album, nor the Moana album, nor the Beauty and The Beast album, nor the Hamilton Cast album, nor the Chris Stapleton album, etc have had any hits, and that doesn't/didn't stop them from selling.

90% of artists biggest selling albums are ones with their biggest hits. Adele's biggest album has her most hits, Rihanna's biggest album has her most hits, Beyonce's biggest album has her most hits, Gaga's biggest album has her most hits, Katy's biggest album has her most hits. It's not a hard concept.

It's very very rare an artist has their peak with just word or mouth and no hits.

 

Hits drive album sales as much as they drive streams. 50% of DJ Khaled's streams could be coming from his 2 singles, and 50% of Imagine Dragon's album sales could come from people who are buying it just because they liked their 2 singles they heard on radio from them.

[alexanderao]

11 minutes ago, DELE2125 said:

Also, you're inferring that only Urban acts have been affected by the climate sales, but the thing is that ALL genres have been affected as well, but Urban has it's lifesaver, other genres only have the declining sales market.

Sales are going down for everybody, but fewer people bought urban music in the first place. So of course urban will be less affected by the climate change. Am I missing something?

 

11 minutes ago, DELE2125 said:

So, in the old chart Blake would've sold more and he also would've been #1.

And the chart wouldn't have been very accurate. It would have completely ignored everybody that was streaming Views.

 

5 minutes ago, fridayteenage said:

How does the UK do it again, not counting the top 2 or 3 songs or something like that?

They pretend that the two most popular tracks on every album actually got x number of streams, where x is the average of the streams of the rest of the songs on the album.

[Beyonce_runthis]

Tidal email me saying the top ten streamer for DJ new album will win something. I've been streaming it all day. I hope I win.

[CandleGuy]

2 hours ago, alexanderao said:

It's not that the new chart was disadvantageous to Blake; it's that the old chart was disadvantageous to Drake. 

But the new chart IS disadvantageous to Blake. 

 

People who buy albums get counted once, at the time of purchase. They can play that album to death and Billboard does not care.  

 

People who stream get counted every time they stream the songs, from the first time to the 1000000th time. That's why albums like Views that are stream heavy have so much 'longevity' compared to sales heavy albums. 

[Blue Rose]

2 hours ago, Beyonce_runthis said:

Tidal email me saying the top ten streamer for DJ new album will win something. I've been streaming it all day. I hope I win.

They didn't even put ID's album on the main page for new releases