Watching a video on MTV isn't the same as streaming an album on Spotify, nothing is similar at all, so that comparison doesn't go anywhere.stevyy wrote:the thing is, american charts and basically all charts in the world, were sales charts first and foremost (especially in regards to albums). However, BB changed that perception and tradition by turning the charts into a consumption chart. I mean streaming and all, did exist back in the 90's, 80's and 70's too. It was called Music Television back then. But the BB200 didn't factor in how many times a music video was played on MTV or VH1 in those years, but today they do. Where is the justice in that?
You cannot include sales, streams from the SINGLE into the album's popularity. If that was possible in the old days, don't you think each and every blockbuster album would have benefitted tremendously as well? I mean take the Bodyguard Soundtrack, it sold 17 million copies in the US, but the song itself (IWALY) sold 5 million physical copies and on top over 3 million digital copies... if the same strategy applied back then, ie a consumption chart, then that soundtrack would have probably been eligible for 30x platinum today.
The new strategy devalues the album as an artform, it blows up sales and favours the impact of the new generation and ultimately, blurs the lines of what is popular and what isn't. Because as an album, Views is not as popular as its chartrun suggests... it's a combination of a popular singles added to the album. But why does BB feel the need to basically abolish its singles chart and double count the performance of the single by including it in an album's chartrun. That's so ridiculous.
Speaking of TTR, Never Too Far (also #1 on the sales chart) or Obsessed (or Can't let Go, Loverboy etc).. you cannot change your tune whenever it's convenient for you. When you argue against WBT because it never was the most downloaded song during its 14 weeks reign at #1 on the H100, then you have to do the same in favour of the songs which were #1. (BTW, Loverboy sold twice as much as Bootylicious 265,000 in week #1 - for the same price, TTR sold 120,000 singles, Never Too Far made it to almost 100,000 and Obsessed stalled at 40,000 physical singles - limited availability). It's not like those songs sold almost nothing, they belonged to the top selling music products of their time.
I feel like the new formula was invented to justify the almost anal stanning of the media for younger artists, whose sales simply don't match their popularity within the confinements of the entertainment industry. How come the legends: Streisand or even Lionel Richie were able to outsell the biggest hitmakers on albums sales with quite some ease, but didn't get a fraction of the media support the youngsters got?
How come, the #1 selling single of week 51 of 2005, which was also ranked in the top 15 on airplay, AIWFCIY, didn't even chart in 2005 when it would have ranked in the T10 combined?
All in all, you cannot compare achievements of today with achievements of the past because the charts have undergone too many changes. So whenever BB releases another one of their "OH look, a record has been matched or broken" articles, you have to laugh it off, because BB did everything they could to make that happen in the first place. Maybe the magazine wants to appeal to T40 listeners, but their pandering to youth and fabulousness lost them a lot of credibility at the same time. It's like a 100 meters sprint, but instead of letting today's generation of runners run 100m, BB shortened the track to 50m and still compares the times.
MTV playing a video is more like airplay. Radio forces a song for the millions to hear, and MTV forces a video for the millions to see. Turning on MTV to watch music videos was literally just the television form of turning on the radio to hear hits.
Airplay doesn't and has never counted for Billboard 200, so therefore it'd make no sense to count viewership from MTV and other channels into the Billboard 200.
& I didn't change my tune at all. I never said We Belong Together didn't deserve #1, never ever. It deserved #1, it was huge huge on radio and radio was the way of consuming hits then. Just like Lose Yourself.
AIWFCIY's 2005 chart exclusion has nothing to do with the formula either, it just had to do with a stupid Billboard rule which prevented older songs from charting.
It's now a time when a "top selling" album has 40K sales, which is absolutely pitiful. If people are streaming an album 100 million times then imo it's not some unbelievable exaggeration that the album is indeed more popular, known, and bigger with the public than an album that is selling 40K first week and will probably miss 100K total. It's a Streaming era, and per stats in 2016 streaming now makes the most money for the industry - more than physical sales and digital sales, so the reality is the industry has evolved.
An album also being #1 due to having big hits isn't some unknown thing. Prior to Soundscan, almost always the #1 albums had huge hits at the moment. It's was almost unheard of to go #1 on Billboard 200 with no hits.