I feel like with so many variants, bots, auto-play and so many cheap tactics to multiply numbers we are not able to track properly what's popular anymore.

they are inflated. But they do determine who is popular. You can't be a khia and sell 1 million copies

"Charts don't matter" or "charts becoming irrelevant" are common words after fav starts flopping

Edited May 15May 15 by Calvin

Records don't mean **** any more. You can't compare the streaming/mass variant era to the digital era, which can't be compared to the physical era.

Just now, Tylerbv said:

Records don't mean **** any more. You can't compare the streaming/mass variant era to the digital era, which can't be compared to the physical era.

I'm sure the physical and digital era had their flaws

But we are definitely in a defining point were record and charts are really becoming irrelevant by the day

No, especially for legacy acts. Non current A-listers very much rely entirely on their first week to make a project look like a success

Why do some of you guys complain about record keeping? It's an important aspect of human history that we track data across time. It gives us a way to view the past from a future perspective. There were periods in the past where people probably felt the same way you do now. No one is forcing you to acknowledge the existence of these records, but the fact of the matter is they exist and that data deserves to be preserved — whether we agree with the statistics or not, they are what they are.

Edited May 15May 15 by PoisonedIvy

and to answer the main question, no. The first week is often the biggest splash, giving smaller artists the media attention to at least TRY and attract more audience members via the publicity that comes along with a decent album debut on the charts.

just ignore any sales or streams from BTS and most of what you see is 90% free of fraud.

For mainstream artists, Longevity > First Week/Peak

Edited May 15May 15 by inmymendes

Since 2014, but ATRL is always behind. Streaming is about consistency and not the first week which is why it's a much more forgiving platform. Sales were much harder, where your albums would be cleared from the shelves to make room for bigger albums if it wasn't a quick hit.

Which is why it's even more impressive when a new artist like Sabrina debuts with 370k and has longevity

First week sales will never stop being relevant. Longevity is more important in the end sure, but that will never make 1st weeks irrelevant when 75% of most albums' rollout (especially for established artists) is dedicated to have the biggest splash possible.

20 minutes ago, Taylena said:

just ignore any sales or streams from BTS and most of what you see is 90% free of fraud.

What about they Tour? Is MASSIVE.

You cant have a "fraud Tour"...

2 minutes ago, BossAngell said:

What about they Tour? Is MASSIVE.

You cant have a "fraud Tour"...

Well duh, they have a big fanbase so ofc their tour is "massive". Still doesn't change the fact that their chart history and sales in the West are fraudulent.

I feel like people have been saying, "The charts don't matter nowadays" for the last 40 years.

8 minutes ago, BossAngell said:

What about they Tour? Is MASSIVE.

You cant have a "fraud Tour"...

I think that right now tour is a much better indicator

But the real data of who is more profitable is behind closed doors

Spotify and Billboard are currently a massive fraud

they mean a lot for revenue

3 minutes ago, byzantium said:

I feel like people have been saying, "The charts don't matter nowadays" for the last 40 years.

There has always been a group of people who resent the industry

But it is a way bigger fraud now, with streaming they can print whatever they want in a screen and call it a success

Even in the physical and digital eras committing fraud was a lot harder

First week sales will always be relevant. I only hear this from stans in pop culture who are disillusioned with certain "tricks" artists use to game the system, but that grievance is ultimately irrelevant

Taylor Swift:

• Massive first week ✅

• Longevity ✅

• Touring ✅

• Streaming ✅

• Physical sales ✅

• Social media ✅

No you're wrong. Having a number 1 is becoming irrelevant. You can have a number 1 song and that doesn't necessarily mean you're gonna have a hit. I'd say there are hit records that don't go to number 1 now. They hit the zeitgeist. For example, Taylor's Is It Over Now was a number 1 record but in no way was that song any sort of hit

16 minutes ago, Asparagus Spears said:

No you're wrong. Having a number 1 is becoming irrelevant. You can have a number 1 song and that doesn't necessarily mean you're gonna have a hit. I'd say there are hit records that don't go to number 1 now. They hit the zeitgeist. For example, Taylor's Is It Over Now was a number 1 record but in no way was that song any sort of hit

"Is it over now" is not even a single.

Never released to radios, no music video, no physical copies, no EP remixes...

So, the fact the song, hit #1 and spent 20 weeks, is huge. Huge cause is just a album track.

13 minutes ago, Asparagus Spears said:

No you're wrong. Having a number 1 is becoming irrelevant. You can have a number 1 song and that doesn't necessarily mean you're gonna have a hit. I'd say there are hit records that don't go to number 1 now. They hit the zeitgeist. For example, Taylor's Is It Over Now was a number 1 record but in no way was that song any sort of hit

I actually think this is a horrible example of implied chart manipulation. IION? didn't have a music video, a radio deal, a remix, a performance, a physical release, literally anything. It was genuinely the most popular song in the country that week in a completely organic way. Taylor didn't even intend to make it the single! Their hand was forced because it did so well. Just because it didn't have longevity during a time insanely saturated with Taylor content, including self-replacing the then NUMBER 1 SINGLE Cruel Summer, doesn't mean it wasn't an organic number 1.

If your point was intended to be that modern charts don't reflect popular music longterm…there are endless number 1s that didn't escape their era. Endless number 1s with ass recurrent stats. Look at half Mariah's number 1s. Born This Way felt much bigger than IION? at the time they were released (6 weeks at number 1?) and now pulls 300k daily. Judas and her 2009 hits regularly do 1 million. TOTGA, released around the same time, is in the global top 10. There are hundreds of examples.

People have been moaning the same things since the charts first existed.

Edited May 15May 15 by DevilsRollTheDice

If I wanted to undermine an artist with huge first week sales, then they don't matter