... Isn't #1 on the Billboard 200

Moderators: kingofskiffle, arab, AutomaticBR

 

Postby iHypeMusic » Sat Jul 30, 2016 2:41 am

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.
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.

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.
User avatar
iHypeMusic
Roadie
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013

Postby stevyy » Wed Aug 03, 2016 3:48 pm

the digital song chart performance of a single affects albums chart placements.. never b4 this rule change a song and album were considered the same. Hence, one cannot compare the current BB200 with older editions from b4 that became a thing.

streaming youtube and watching a video on MTV is essentially the same, because it showcases music video consumption. Sth which has never been used to audit an album's popularity b4 that rule was implemented.

Again, streaming doesn't reflect popularity any better than sales. I bought an album, played it 6,000 times, but my "streams" aren't audited which is a shame. So essentially, the streams of those 40,000 people who bought an album in the first week aren't included, but if you put them together, i assume you'd reach a healthy sum as well.

the music buying crowd (like myself) is not reflected in the American charts anymore. And our impact gets smaller and smaller in progressing years.. not because sales are in the pits, but because we are not represented in the grand scheme of streaming.

it would be fairer if the BB200 would include personal charts... bc that's essentially the same as including streams.
User avatar
stevyy
Legend
 
Posts: 47737
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005
Location: .dk

Postby iHypeMusic » Wed Aug 03, 2016 5:03 pm

stevyy wrote:the digital song chart performance of a single affects albums chart placements.. never b4 this rule change a song and album were considered the same. Hence, one cannot compare the current BB200 with older editions from b4 that became a thing.

streaming youtube and watching a video on MTV is essentially the same, because it showcases music video consumption. Sth which has never been used to audit an album's popularity b4 that rule was implemented.

Again, streaming doesn't reflect popularity any better than sales. I bought an album, played it 6,000 times, but my "streams" aren't audited which is a shame. So essentially, the streams of those 40,000 people who bought an album in the first week aren't included, but if you put them together, i assume you'd reach a healthy sum as well.

the music buying crowd (like myself) is not reflected in the American charts anymore. And our impact gets smaller and smaller in progressing years.. not because sales are in the pits, but because we are not represented in the grand scheme of streaming.

it would be fairer if the BB200 would include personal charts... bc that's essentially the same as including streams.
On-Demand audio streams count for Billboard 200, and On-Demand video and audio streams count for Hot 100. On-Demand means the consumer has the ability to choose what they want to watch. MTV isn't on-demand, as they have a programmed playlist... Just like radio. So again, MTV is similar to airplay, not streaming. And programmed streams (through services like Pandora where they choose what you listen to) do not count for Billboard 200 or Hot 100, so again, even if you consider MTV "Streaming" somehow, it'd fall into the programmed streaming category, which doesn't count for Billboard anyways. On-Demand streaming counts for Billboard, and MTV isn't similar to On-Demand.

And music buying is indeed represented less because sales are declining more. If this was 1999 and over 20 releases per year were shifting multi platinum in pure sales, then yes, streaming and other sources of consumption would be taking the backseat. If it was 1999, and the average #1 album was selling over 300,000+ per week in pure sales then yes sales would have the forefront. But this is 2016, where no release has reached multi platinum, and the #1 selling albums the past month have failed to even sell 75k. When a format is dying, the power or representation isn't gonna be increased nor stay the same, that's just common sense. The music buying crowd is becoming smaller and smaller so as it goes, their impact in things like charts are becoming smaller.
User avatar
iHypeMusic
Roadie
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013

Postby NothingFails » Wed Aug 03, 2016 6:56 pm

iHypeMusic wrote:And music buying is indeed represented less because sales are declining more. If this was 1999 and over 20 releases per year were shifting multi platinum in pure sales, then yes, streaming and other sources of consumption would be taking the backseat. If it was 1999, and the average #1 album was selling over 300,000+ per week in pure sales then yes sales would have the forefront. But this is 2016, where no release has reached multi platinum, and the #1 selling albums the past month have failed to even sell 75k. When a format is dying, the power or representation isn't gonna be increased nor stay the same, that's just common sense. The music buying crowd is becoming smaller and smaller so as it goes, their impact in things like charts are becoming smaller.
Did it dawn that possibly a lot of the stuff radio/media is shoving just isn't as popular as radio and stans want to make it out as being? All we have to do is look at hard sales numbers for Adele, Taylor, Beyonce and Drake (real sales numbers, not the SPS crap trying to make it look like Views is as popular as 21 or 1989) to show people still pay for music. Just right now there isn't anything overly dominant and a generation sees music as something that should be free.

The sales chart has ALWAYS been about sales, so why should it change? Many articles are starting to call the BB boner over Drake out and how it's trying to make it look like he's as big as Usher was in 2004 when the reality is his album is a success, but it isn't the runaway 1989/21/25/Thriller type of blockbuster its runs make it out to be when he's usually between the 5-10 album of a given week in sales, which is decent enough.

If anything, how low hard sales figures are are shouldn't be "fixed" by giving the chart to 12 year olds who already run the singles chart, but perhaps make radio wake up and change things if a song can barely sell 100k copies of an album despite being a blockbuster single. Maybe MTV should take charge and steer back to music again... MTV and high album sales were hand in hand from about the time of Thriller until the early 2000s when Eminem and Usher were massive. There is no real outlet for music anymore, YouTube and streaming doesn't count because the stats show most consumers are extremely conservative and never actually dip out of their safe zone. No wonder there is no real new revolution going on in music where there is no outlet to expose it to a wide audience the way you did from the days of Bandstand up until the last days MTV placed any focus on music.
NothingFails
Legend
 
Posts: 42449
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004

Postby iHypeMusic » Wed Aug 03, 2016 8:31 pm

NothingFails wrote:
iHypeMusic wrote:And music buying is indeed represented less because sales are declining more. If this was 1999 and over 20 releases per year were shifting multi platinum in pure sales, then yes, streaming and other sources of consumption would be taking the backseat. If it was 1999, and the average #1 album was selling over 300,000+ per week in pure sales then yes sales would have the forefront. But this is 2016, where no release has reached multi platinum, and the #1 selling albums the past month have failed to even sell 75k. When a format is dying, the power or representation isn't gonna be increased nor stay the same, that's just common sense. The music buying crowd is becoming smaller and smaller so as it goes, their impact in things like charts are becoming smaller.
Did it dawn that possibly a lot of the stuff radio/media is shoving just isn't as popular as radio and stans want to make it out as being? All we have to do is look at hard sales numbers for Adele, Taylor, Beyonce and Drake (real sales numbers, not the SPS crap trying to make it look like Views is as popular as 21 or 1989) to show people still pay for music. Just right now there isn't anything overly dominant and a generation sees music as something that should be free.

The sales chart has ALWAYS been about sales, so why should it change? Many articles are starting to call the BB boner over Drake out and how it's trying to make it look like he's as big as Usher was in 2004 when the reality is his album is a success, but it isn't the runaway 1989/21/25/Thriller type of blockbuster its runs make it out to be when he's usually between the 5-10 album of a given week in sales, which is decent enough.

If anything, how low hard sales figures are are shouldn't be "fixed" by giving the chart to 12 year olds who already run the singles chart, but perhaps make radio wake up and change things if a song can barely sell 100k copies of an album despite being a blockbuster single. Maybe MTV should take charge and steer back to music again... MTV and high album sales were hand in hand from about the time of Thriller until the early 2000s when Eminem and Usher were massive. There is no real outlet for music anymore, YouTube and streaming doesn't count because the stats show most consumers are extremely conservative and never actually dip out of their safe zone. No wonder there is no real new revolution going on in music where there is no outlet to expose it to a wide audience the way you did from the days of Bandstand up until the last days MTV placed any focus on music.
Number of million-selling albums per year (SoundScan):

1994 - 69
1995 - 64
1996 - 56
1997 - 70
1998 - 81
1999 - 88
2000 - 88
2001 - 100
2002 - 65
2003 - 70
2004 - 70
2005 - 48
2006 - 52
2007 - 39
2008 - 25
2009 - 22
2010 - 13
2011 - 13
2012 - 10
2013 - 13
2014 - 4
2015 - 7
2016 - 3

Sorry, but simply having the dream that "if MTV plays music again" sales will suddenly resurge through the roof isn't happening. Sales are continuing to decline and won't be stopping anytime soon. In 3 years selling 500K will be a top seller, 3 years later, selling 250K will be a top seller. You guys will keep clinging to smaller numbers instead of realizing sales aren't the only form of popularity. Taylor & Adele are anomalies, and only 2 people selling amounts that 10x more people could do 15 years ago doesn't indicate in anyway sales will have any revival.

Billboard 200, is a popularity chart, not sales chart, hence why it's not sales only as of present. If they want to represent the most popular albums, such is going to have to be done with not only sales – UK, France, Germany, and literally every other country agrees at this point that streams should count towards the albums charts. The global music industry of people who research and base their living off the music industry. You can get mad but as time progress sales will only decline and also lose more representation in charts. Either accept the industry has new ways to define success or just keep complaining until death.

And just because Drake spent lots of weeks at #1 /=/ huge as ____ album. Weeks at #1 has never determined how huge an album was, there is albums that haven't gone #1 period and sold 15 million in America while there's albums that have gone #1 and haven't went Gold. Where's the outcry about that? Even with sales only, weeks at #1 has never meant anything when it came down to popularity.

And Billboard isn't saying the album is popular as Thriller or 1989, they're just saying it's the most consumed album for 12 weeks. It's not hard to get. The overall difference in SPS between Views and 1989 (3.2M and 8M) also shows even with the SPS Chart that Views is nowhere near the mammoth that 1989 was. But you only choose to look at something trivial as weeks at #1. In what word does weeks at #1 determine how big an album was over cumulative total?
User avatar
iHypeMusic
Roadie
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013

Postby stevyy » Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:08 pm

no chart on this planet used to be a popularity chart. Charts measured - for around 60 years - what people bought. As by tradition charts used to be sales charts.

However, the whole popularity thing occured, once really "popular" stars couldn't get an album hit. It was during the itunes advent when singles sales slowly began to pick up again. It seemed to be unnatural to have songs selling 5-6-7-8 million copies while the album couldn't pass or reach Gold.

So the whole, albums don't reflect what's popular notion was creating to make way for the transformations we've seen in the past 5 years.

A 10,000 copies selling #1 charting music album still was the most popular selling album in that week.

I find it quite ignorant to say that albums sales don't show what is popular anymore. The albums sales market has never been stable, it was either increasing or decreasing. Nobody came to the conclusion that the BB200 in 1960 wouldn't reflect popularity of albums either (we all know that during that time, singles sales also outperformed albums sales).

So within the confinements of a market, a #1 selling album still is the most popular album among albums buyers. No matter how big or small the market is.

However, the albums charts around the world stopped functioning as albums chart once digital singles sales, youtube streams and such affected the weekly positions. It's a completely trajedy and sell out, it also only benefits a certain kind of artist and genre and generation.

The music industry really did hurt themselves by putting all the focus on streaming while abandoning a 6 decades old tradition and the whole generation post 1990.

The current forms the albums charts are composed of, doesn't reflect popularity any better than a pure sales or pure streaming chart. It only captures a look at music consumption.
User avatar
stevyy
Legend
 
Posts: 47737
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005
Location: .dk

Postby iHypeMusic » Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:30 pm

stevyy wrote:no chart on this planet used to be a popularity chart. Charts measured - for around 60 years - what people bought. As by tradition charts used to be sales charts.

However, the whole popularity thing occured, once really "popular" stars couldn't get an album hit. It was during the itunes advent when singles sales slowly began to pick up again. It seemed to be unnatural to have songs selling 5-6-7-8 million copies while the album couldn't pass or reach Gold.

So the whole, albums don't reflect what's popular notion was creating to make way for the transformations we've seen in the past 5 years.

A 10,000 copies selling #1 charting music album still was the most popular selling album in that week.

I find it quite ignorant to say that albums sales don't show what is popular anymore. The albums sales market has never been stable, it was either increasing or decreasing. Nobody came to the conclusion that the BB200 in 1960 wouldn't reflect popularity of albums either (we all know that during that time, singles sales also outperformed albums sales).

So within the confinements of a market, a #1 selling album still is the most popular album among albums buyers. No matter how big or small the market is.

However, the albums charts around the world stopped functioning as albums chart once digital singles sales, youtube streams and such affected the weekly positions. It's a completely trajedy and sell out, it also only benefits a certain kind of artist and genre and generation.

The music industry really did hurt themselves by putting all the focus on streaming while abandoning a 6 decades old tradition and the whole generation post 1990.

The current forms the albums charts are composed of, doesn't reflect popularity any better than a pure sales or pure streaming chart. It only captures a look at music consumption.
Yes, sales were the only thing measured because they were the only form of consumption that consumers controlled. But now we have another form of consumption that consumers control, and the industry makes money from. Comparing 1960 to 2016 is just stupid, it's like you WANT to live in the past lol. By your logic, 'why include digital sales? For 50 years prior to that ONLY physical sales were included', why should we actually advance in time to how music is consumed in society today?

Also never ever said album sales don't determine popularity anymore. I said they do less than perhaps, 15 years ago, and the popularity continues to decline and will decline more in the future and they are not the ONLY way to determine popularity. Sales determine popularity, and streams determine popularity, hence Sales Plus Streaming's purpose.
User avatar
iHypeMusic
Roadie
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013

Postby NothingFails » Wed Aug 03, 2016 10:26 pm

iHypeMusic wrote:
stevyy wrote:no chart on this planet used to be a popularity chart. Charts measured - for around 60 years - what people bought. As by tradition charts used to be sales charts.

However, the whole popularity thing occured, once really "popular" stars couldn't get an album hit. It was during the itunes advent when singles sales slowly began to pick up again. It seemed to be unnatural to have songs selling 5-6-7-8 million copies while the album couldn't pass or reach Gold.

So the whole, albums don't reflect what's popular notion was creating to make way for the transformations we've seen in the past 5 years.

A 10,000 copies selling #1 charting music album still was the most popular selling album in that week.

I find it quite ignorant to say that albums sales don't show what is popular anymore. The albums sales market has never been stable, it was either increasing or decreasing. Nobody came to the conclusion that the BB200 in 1960 wouldn't reflect popularity of albums either (we all know that during that time, singles sales also outperformed albums sales).

So within the confinements of a market, a #1 selling album still is the most popular album among albums buyers. No matter how big or small the market is.

However, the albums charts around the world stopped functioning as albums chart once digital singles sales, youtube streams and such affected the weekly positions. It's a completely trajedy and sell out, it also only benefits a certain kind of artist and genre and generation.

The music industry really did hurt themselves by putting all the focus on streaming while abandoning a 6 decades old tradition and the whole generation post 1990.

The current forms the albums charts are composed of, doesn't reflect popularity any better than a pure sales or pure streaming chart. It only captures a look at music consumption.
Yes, sales were the only thing measured because they were the only form of consumption that consumers controlled. But now we have another form of consumption that consumers control, and the industry makes money from. Comparing 1960 to 2016 is just stupid, it's like you WANT to live in the past lol. By your logic, 'why include digital sales? For 50 years prior to that ONLY physical sales were included', why should we actually advance in time to how music is consumed in society today?

Also never ever said album sales don't determine popularity anymore. I said they do less than perhaps, 15 years ago, and the popularity continues to decline and will decline more in the future and they are not the ONLY way to determine popularity. Sales determine popularity, and streams determine popularity, hence Sales Plus Streaming's purpose.
But you seriously can't see the slant against people over the age of 18. Some snot nose who never paid for a cd in his life can play _____ 30 times in a week, and somehow that counts more than the person who bought a cd and played it ad nauseum in their car or home stereo or something that wasn't locked in to a streaming site or something, and the kid who didn't pay for music suddenly has more value.

Album SALES don't dictate "popularity" any more than what album happened to sell more copies on one certain week any more than tv ratings or movie tickets don't necessarily determine what movie or tv show is more popular on social media. Basically BB just altered it to give in to the stans who follow each weeks chart move like it's a serial.

If Drake was as big a cultural force and entity as Taylor Swift or Adele, his album sales would reflect that. They don't. Could you imagine how abominable the chart would've been in 2010 because of Beliebers?

Billboard essentially took a big dump in the face of every artist who doesn't rely on 12 year old girls to survive. Many of those artists "need" chart positions more than Drake does because it can be what can make or break them actually bothering to record another album, since many artists who aren't "pop stars" and don't have the windfall coming their way have a harder time getting the funds to make their music. A top 10 debut even if it falls to #70 the next week is enough to make them feel the urge to keep going forward instead of breaking up or just becoming a touring act like many acts from the 60s-90s who continue to tour but never make new music because they don't think there's an audience left. Many older artists flat out have said they won't record another album because they don't think it'd be worth it.... yet a decent chart position is enough to keep them going forward.
NothingFails
Legend
 
Posts: 42449
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004

Postby iHypeMusic » Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:24 am

NothingFails wrote:
iHypeMusic wrote:
stevyy wrote:no chart on this planet used to be a popularity chart. Charts measured - for around 60 years - what people bought. As by tradition charts used to be sales charts.

However, the whole popularity thing occured, once really "popular" stars couldn't get an album hit. It was during the itunes advent when singles sales slowly began to pick up again. It seemed to be unnatural to have songs selling 5-6-7-8 million copies while the album couldn't pass or reach Gold.

So the whole, albums don't reflect what's popular notion was creating to make way for the transformations we've seen in the past 5 years.

A 10,000 copies selling #1 charting music album still was the most popular selling album in that week.

I find it quite ignorant to say that albums sales don't show what is popular anymore. The albums sales market has never been stable, it was either increasing or decreasing. Nobody came to the conclusion that the BB200 in 1960 wouldn't reflect popularity of albums either (we all know that during that time, singles sales also outperformed albums sales).

So within the confinements of a market, a #1 selling album still is the most popular album among albums buyers. No matter how big or small the market is.

However, the albums charts around the world stopped functioning as albums chart once digital singles sales, youtube streams and such affected the weekly positions. It's a completely trajedy and sell out, it also only benefits a certain kind of artist and genre and generation.

The music industry really did hurt themselves by putting all the focus on streaming while abandoning a 6 decades old tradition and the whole generation post 1990.

The current forms the albums charts are composed of, doesn't reflect popularity any better than a pure sales or pure streaming chart. It only captures a look at music consumption.
Yes, sales were the only thing measured because they were the only form of consumption that consumers controlled. But now we have another form of consumption that consumers control, and the industry makes money from. Comparing 1960 to 2016 is just stupid, it's like you WANT to live in the past lol. By your logic, 'why include digital sales? For 50 years prior to that ONLY physical sales were included', why should we actually advance in time to how music is consumed in society today?

Also never ever said album sales don't determine popularity anymore. I said they do less than perhaps, 15 years ago, and the popularity continues to decline and will decline more in the future and they are not the ONLY way to determine popularity. Sales determine popularity, and streams determine popularity, hence Sales Plus Streaming's purpose.
But you seriously can't see the slant against people over the age of 18. Some snot nose who never paid for a cd in his life can play _____ 30 times in a week, and somehow that counts more than the person who bought a cd and played it ad nauseum in their car or home stereo or something that wasn't locked in to a streaming site or something, and the kid who didn't pay for music suddenly has more value.

Album SALES don't dictate "popularity" any more than what album happened to sell more copies on one certain week any more than tv ratings or movie tickets don't necessarily determine what movie or tv show is more popular on social media. Basically BB just altered it to give in to the stans who follow each weeks chart move like it's a serial.

If Drake was as big a cultural force and entity as Taylor Swift or Adele, his album sales would reflect that. They don't. Could you imagine how abominable the chart would've been in 2010 because of Beliebers?

Billboard essentially took a big dump in the face of every artist who doesn't rely on 12 year old girls to survive. Many of those artists "need" chart positions more than Drake does because it can be what can make or break them actually bothering to record another album, since many artists who aren't "pop stars" and don't have the windfall coming their way have a harder time getting the funds to make their music. A top 10 debut even if it falls to #70 the next week is enough to make them feel the urge to keep going forward instead of breaking up or just becoming a touring act like many acts from the 60s-90s who continue to tour but never make new music because they don't think there's an audience left. Many older artists flat out have said they won't record another album because they don't think it'd be worth it.... yet a decent chart position is enough to keep them going forward.
The problem is you keep referring to streaming as "run by 13 year olds who have never bought an album". You're wrong.

Streaming AND Sales mostly come from teenagers, as reported by Billboard:

Business Matters: Teens Listen to Music Most on YouTube, Pay for Music More Than Other Age Groups, Nielsen Study Says
http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/n ... music-more
-- Teens are more likely than other age groups to have purchased music of any format (72% versus an average of 68%) in the last 12 months. It helps that teens aren't always spending their own money: 46% of them used an iTunes gift card in the last year.

-- Over a third (36%) of teens have bought a CD in the last year while 51% of them have purchased some kind of music download (could be a single track). The averages for all age groups are 41% and 41%, respectively.
So in essence, the same 13 year olds you keep saying have never bought a CD also buy more music than someone your age, in addition to streaming.

As said, the charts in general are a young persons game and driven by the young population.

How many 40+ year olds do you think are listening to the week's top selling single: Justin Bieber & Major Lazer - Cold Water compared to teens? How many 40+ year olds do you think are listening to the week's top selling album: Gucci Mane - Everybody Looking?

The young age group has just as much influence on sales as streaming, as confirmed by Nielsen and Billboard so there goes your argument on "13 year olds who refuse to buy music being unfairly represented". If they stream and buy music more than any other audience then them having the most representation is realistic.
User avatar
iHypeMusic
Roadie
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013

Postby stevyy » Thu Aug 04, 2016 7:58 pm

the only sane album chart there is left today, probably with Japan and France, is Germany.

A revenue chart is the best way for the industry to track popularity. According to the BVMI the German music industry (3rd in the world) is predominantly kept alive by the 30-59 age group.

The US is - if we believe you - the only music market on this planet in which 13 y,o. may predominantly dominate popular discourse. :lol:

Maybe it's a cultural thing. But unlike the US, veteran acts can still score massive sales in Europe and basically anywhere in the world, but the US. Why is that? Because of 2 decades full of ageism.
User avatar
stevyy
Legend
 
Posts: 47737
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005
Location: .dk

Postby NothingFails » Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:51 pm

iHypeMusic wrote: The problem is you keep referring to streaming as "run by 13 year olds who have never bought an album". You're wrong.
You say I am, but please provide me with ONE older / non-pop / rock / alternative / etc... artist whose primary fanbase isn't in junior high who has benefited from SPS besides Prince and David Bowie, two artists who literally had to die to do so? I can't name one, can you? Basically all artists who fit into the boxes I mentioned suffer simply because they don't explode on the Twitterverse for the young pop stans to go nuts over.

With SPS, the album charts today has become something similar to what TRL used to be on MTV in the day.

I know you're a big Drake fan and like this because the rules work in his favor, but really... it's ridiculously exaggerating his fame. He is hardly MJ or Prince in 1984, Usher in 2004 or Taylor Swift in 2015 for that matter.
Last edited by NothingFails on Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NothingFails
Legend
 
Posts: 42449
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004

Postby MrDiva » Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:52 pm

The title of this thread is bad
It's misleading
Has nothing to do with the content imo
LIKE VICTORIA FOX ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/VictoriaFoxNow/
Follow me on Instagram @mrdeeva
MrDiva
Superstar
 
Posts: 9704
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013
Location: Germany

Postby Nippian93 » Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:05 pm

We will be counting "pirate" downloads as sales soon, it is also on demand, and people have to pay ISP for being able to download something, to have an internet connection.
❤Whitney Houston
User avatar
Nippian93
Legend
 
Posts: 28625
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016

Postby stevyy » Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:11 pm

Nippian93 wrote:We will be counting "pirate" downloads as sales soon, it is also on demand, and people have to pay ISP for being able to download something, to have an internet connection.
so true. but it's hard to track them, over 2 billion songs have been pirated via Napster alone between 1999/2000 (based on traffic).
User avatar
stevyy
Legend
 
Posts: 47737
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005
Location: .dk

Postby NothingFails » Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:33 pm

stevyy wrote:
Nippian93 wrote:We will be counting "pirate" downloads as sales soon, it is also on demand, and people have to pay ISP for being able to download something, to have an internet connection.
so true. but it's hard to track them, over 2 billion songs have been pirated via Napster alone between 1999/2000 (based on traffic).
and of course it will score higher chart points than those old fashioned people who still like to pay for their music, because "ewwww, old people do that" :lol: :lol:
NothingFails
Legend
 
Posts: 42449
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004

Postby iHypeMusic » Fri Aug 05, 2016 1:42 am

NothingFails wrote:
iHypeMusic wrote: The problem is you keep referring to streaming as "run by 13 year olds who have never bought an album". You're wrong.
You say I am, but please provide me with ONE older / non-pop / rock / alternative / etc... artist whose primary fanbase isn't in junior high who has benefited from SPS besides Prince and David Bowie, two artists who literally had to die to do so? I can't name one, can you? Basically all artists who fit into the boxes I mentioned suffer simply because they don't explode on the Twitterverse for the young pop stans to go nuts over.

With SPS, the album charts today has become something similar to what TRL used to be on MTV in the day.

I know you're a big Drake fan and like this because the rules work in his favor, but really... it's ridiculously exaggerating his fame. He is hardly MJ or Prince in 1984, Usher in 2004 or Taylor Swift in 2015 for that matter.
Coldplay is one of the top 10 most streamed acts ever on Spotify. Michael Jackson benefits well from SPS, The Beatles benefit well from SPS, Eminem benefits well from SPS, 2Pac benefits well from SPS, AC/DC benefits well from SPS, The Rolling Stones benefits from SPS, Nirvana benefits well from SPS, and there's others. The ones who aren't alive died before this decade so they don't have any recent spike, and they also sell well weekly on par with good streams. All of them also debuted before this millennium so the whole "13 year old fanbase" and "name older artists" excuses don't work with them. Each of them has albums that constantly chart on Billboard 200 and pull good track sales and streams.

And obviously Drake isn't Taylor, MJ, Prince, or Usher. His album has done 3.2M in SPS to date... While there's have all done over 9M+. So no even with SPS, he's not big as them. As I said, weeks at #1 mean NOTHING when determining a bigger album, and never have even when a chart was sales only, so there's really no point in suggesting that or complaining that it suggests it.
User avatar
iHypeMusic
Roadie
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013

Postby iHypeMusic » Fri Aug 05, 2016 2:18 am

stevyy wrote:the only sane album chart there is left today, probably with Japan and France, is Germany.

A revenue chart is the best way for the industry to track popularity. According to the BVMI the German music industry (3rd in the world) is predominantly kept alive by the 30-59 age group.

The US is - if we believe you - the only music market on this planet in which 13 y,o. may predominantly dominate popular discourse. :lol:

Maybe it's a cultural thing. But unlike the US, veteran acts can still score massive sales in Europe and basically anywhere in the world, but the US. Why is that? Because of 2 decades full of ageism.
"if we believe you"
I didn't make any claims. Billboard & Nielsen Soundscan made the claims/article. Why would you believe German music industry on which age group buys music most in Germany but not believe the US music industry on which age group buys music most in US?

France's album chart started including audio streaming from all platforms and all users last week just like US, so you're down to Germany and Japan. :lol: Their single chart will also include streaming.

Streaming hasn't taken off in Japan yet (Spotify isn't even available in Japan) which is why their charts don't have streaming, but when it does take off I guess you'll have just Germany. :lol:

IFPI also includes streams for their top selling singles the past 2 years, and so them including streams for albums isn't gonna be too far away.
User avatar
iHypeMusic
Roadie
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013

Postby stevyy » Fri Aug 05, 2016 12:49 pm

bc 13 y.o. don't buy music, their parents do (for them). :D
User avatar
stevyy
Legend
 
Posts: 47737
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005
Location: .dk

Postby stevyy » Fri Aug 05, 2016 12:52 pm

iHypeMusic wrote:
stevyy wrote:the only sane album chart there is left today, probably with Japan and France, is Germany.

A revenue chart is the best way for the industry to track popularity. According to the BVMI the German music industry (3rd in the world) is predominantly kept alive by the 30-59 age group.

The US is - if we believe you - the only music market on this planet in which 13 y,o. may predominantly dominate popular discourse. :lol:

Maybe it's a cultural thing. But unlike the US, veteran acts can still score massive sales in Europe and basically anywhere in the world, but the US. Why is that? Because of 2 decades full of ageism.
"if we believe you"
I didn't make any claims. Billboard & Nielsen Soundscan made the claims/article. Why would you believe German music industry on which age group buys music most in Germany but not believe the US music industry on which age group buys music most in US?

France's album chart started including audio streaming from all platforms and all users last week just like US, so you're down to Germany and Japan. :lol: Their single chart will also include streaming.

Streaming hasn't taken off in Japan yet (Spotify isn't even available in Japan) which is why their charts don't have streaming, but when it does take off I guess you'll have just Germany. :lol:

IFPI also includes streams for their top selling singles the past 2 years, and so them including streams for albums isn't gonna be too far away.
no, i guess, Germans and Japanes - once the most evil countries in history - believe in purchases. CD sales account for 70% of the German music industry's revenue. <3 same in Japan. It must be a cultural thing. BC we are literally the only countries in the world left with a viable sales driven music industry. <3

rise up JapGer, rise up.
User avatar
stevyy
Legend
 
Posts: 47737
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005
Location: .dk

Postby KatyVenezuela » Sat Aug 06, 2016 7:13 pm

I'm so tired of these 13yo buying the new Britney Spears / NSYNC CD.
Ugh at these 13 yo buying Fergalicious on iTunes, physical >>>

We should stop counting CD / Digital sales since Vinyl is far superior, we can still count cassettes for singles though.
Katy Perry - P!nk - Coldplay.
User avatar
KatyVenezuela
Manager
 
Posts: 3958
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010

Postby Nippian93 » Sat Aug 06, 2016 7:24 pm

KatyVenezuela wrote:I'm so tired of these 13yo buying the new Britney Spears / NSYNC CD.
Ugh at these 13 yo buying Fergalicious on iTunes, physical >>>
Do people still buy stuff like mentioned above ? :lol:
❤Whitney Houston
User avatar
Nippian93
Legend
 
Posts: 28625
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016

Postby iHypeMusic » Sat Aug 06, 2016 8:13 pm

KatyVenezuela wrote:I'm so tired of these 13yo buying the new Britney Spears / NSYNC CD.
Ugh at these 13 yo buying Fergalicious on iTunes, physical >>>

We should stop counting CD / Digital sales since Vinyl is far superior, we can still count cassettes for singles though.
!! These 13 year olds are giving these new artists all these 5 million selling digital songs, because they're too cheap to go out and buy a physical single or album like back then.

I can't name any older artist that ISN'T Pop who's also selling 5M singles on iTunes so clearly iTunes isn't fair, and 13 year olds are being given too much power. Digital singles should no longer count, either physical singles or nothing.
User avatar
iHypeMusic
Roadie
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013

Postby NothingFails » Sat Aug 06, 2016 11:06 pm

KatyVenezuela wrote:I'm so tired of these 13yo buying the new Britney Spears / NSYNC CD.
Ugh at these 13 yo buying Fergalicious on iTunes, physical >>>

We should stop counting CD / Digital sales since Vinyl is far superior, we can still count cassettes for singles though.
The difference is that in the TRL tween hell days, people actually bought the CD's. Britney, BSB, N'Sync... were shattering sales records and their albums were going diamond. They were actually making money and people were parting with theirs to support it. Can't compare it to a bunch of kids glued to their iphone listening to a Spotify "top 40 hit mix" in the background, all the while balking at the idea of paying for music. If acts like Adele and Taylor are still making millions and selling solid numbers, I don't buy that the industry is dead and needs to be handed over to streamers as much as that we're ripe for a new musical revolution and finds something that actually clicks more with a general audience as opposed to how Ariana can barely sell 500k copies despite having the money put behind her that would be expected to sell 5 million.
NothingFails
Legend
 
Posts: 42449
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004

Postby NothingFails » Sat Aug 06, 2016 11:10 pm

iHypeMusic wrote:
KatyVenezuela wrote:I'm so tired of these 13yo buying the new Britney Spears / NSYNC CD.
Ugh at these 13 yo buying Fergalicious on iTunes, physical >>>

We should stop counting CD / Digital sales since Vinyl is far superior, we can still count cassettes for singles though.
!! These 13 year olds are giving these new artists all these 5 million selling digital songs, because they're too cheap to go out and buy a physical single or album like back then.
I can't name any older artist that ISN'T Pop who's also selling 5M singles on iTunes so clearly iTunes isn't fair, and 13 year olds are being given too much power. Digital singles should no longer count, either physical singles or nothing.
But that's it... the SINGLES CHART is for SINGLES. Older artists/non-pop artists/indie, etc... have always shifted more albums than singles. Single success and the album being a smash have never gone hand in hand. There were many big hit singles in decades past that didn't do anything to the album, people liked the song, didn't want the album... no different than your Lukas Graham or Walk The Moon today.

Can't wait until you're no longer the target musical demo and a younger generation comes along and your stars are having to settle for a #100 peak even though their album sold enough to be #12 simply because the tweens no longer support Drake or somebody. It will happen, and we'll see just how much you think SPS is the way charts should be because album charts are supposed to measure popularity over sales. You're going to age out of the demographic and you'll realize what people like me and stevyy have been saying once you're on the other side and see how ridiculous the chart rules are slanted and favors one demographic over another.

Unlike you, those of us who were kids in the 90s realized we had to share the chart with our parents and other demographics. Kids weren't supporting Michael Bolton, Kenny G, Amy Grant, Garth Brooks, Reba McEntire, Rod Stewart, Eric Clapton, Hootie And The Blowfish and yet all of them were huge on the chart, sometimes even bigger than the acts our age group were lapping up. Difference is we weren't getting participation trophies and had to deal with it unlike now where tweens think they're the only demographic that exists and radio has coddled them all their lives unlike those of us in the 80s/90s who were taught to deal with old people making music.
NothingFails
Legend
 
Posts: 42449
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004

Postby stevyy » Sun Aug 07, 2016 12:05 am

if the tweens need a chart so badly that represents their way of music consumption they should get one. But the main charts should have been left alone. Never in the history of music charts have singles and albums charts been combined like it is today. The only reason behind that is to make current pop singers bigger than they are.

But I have to say, that during my teenage years, we didn't even have acts predominantly manufactured for kids like today. Because radio would still play a 40 y.o. Lennon and McCartney, I grew up listening to them. The boyband craze etc happened much later.. and from then on, it all went downhilll.
User avatar
stevyy
Legend
 
Posts: 47737
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005
Location: .dk

Return to Chart Analysis