Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 1:24:16 GMT -5
Yeah, this made me lose respect for Jay a bit. Do you honestly believe Jay personally callled in to request that? It was more than likely just his label people or management or w/e doing their job. There's even a chance Jay Z didn't know about it. lbr well in fairness, Jay founded and runs Roc Nation, which functions both as a management company and a label. and before that he headed Def Jam and Roc-a-fella. for most - well really, all - of his career he's basically been the guy running things for everyone else under him, so i can see why someone would assume that he made this call for himself as well. i did. that said, 'losing respect' for him is a bit overdramatic imo. maybe he is trying to buy himself a piece of record-breaking history but i'd argue that he's probably just trying to generate a bunch of buzz for his album. i personally think both he and Kanye are just getting off on this "we're so huge we don't even NEED singles to sell!" thing, but they know they still have to do something to make people aware they're releasing something so they're trying to come up with unconventional ways of doing it. the fuss over all this and BB going so far as to address it in an open letter is a form of promotion, so even though BB told him no, he still gets something out of it.
|
|
π
³π
Έππ
²π
Ύ
Diamond Member
Banned
I will beach both of you off at the same time!
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 69,123
|
Post by π
³π
Έππ
²π
Ύ on Jun 23, 2013 2:33:38 GMT -5
Yeah, this made me lose respect for Jay a bit. Do you honestly believe Jay personally callled in to request that? It was more than likely just his label people or management or w/e doing their job. There's even a chance Jay Z didn't know about it. lbr Jay-Z is running his empire on his terms, so naturally he would have a hand in many of the things related to his musical endeavors too. Why wouldn't he ask on his own or have someone do it for him if it were possible to get it? It could be one of those cases where one asks just to see what the answer is. No harm in just asking, right? He got his answer. I just don't think it's that big of a deal since nothing has changed and no rules were re-examined or altered. I have no idea why Billboard publicized this like they did, unless Jay-Z and/or his people cried to them repeatedly after him/them were told that they won't get their way with this matter and Billboard felt it necessary to make sure that no one else bothers to try to ask about this matter for their own album/single if they think they could try to get this to happen.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,884
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Jun 23, 2013 7:11:39 GMT -5
denverd- the Samsung app is FREE- so there is absolutely no sale of any kind that involves the app itself or the Jay-Z album. At least that's what I understand to be the case.
|
|
Jack
8x Platinum Member
King of the World
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 8,517
|
Post by Jack on Jun 23, 2013 7:45:58 GMT -5
Yeah, this made me lose respect for Jay a bit. Do you honestly believe Jay personally callled in to request that? It was more than likely just his label people or management or w/e doing their job. There's even a chance Jay Z didn't know about it. lbr Yes, his tweets from a few days ago lead me to believe that he was well aware of what they were trying to do with the album, and he was almost boasting it as though it had already happened.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Jun 23, 2013 16:46:17 GMT -5
I didn't base my statement on the thread title. I based it on the content within the article where they talked about the consideration process to rule changes. The Jay-Z thing was rejected but what it did was get them to think about it. The last three paragraphs are devoted to moving off the sales-only-based format that drives the chart, to perhaps a sales/streaming combo. They give that much space to it, it might be a hint that something is brewing. Am I right? Maybe. Maybe not. That is just how I interpreted it Sounds right to me.
|
|
Myth X
Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 1,163
|
Post by Myth X on Jun 23, 2013 18:17:27 GMT -5
How could they include streaming to the Billboard 200?
What if some people only listen half of the album? Or only a couple of songs of the album. I don't see how that could work.
|
|
Gold Soundz
5x Platinum Member
Banned
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 5,727
|
Post by Gold Soundz on Jun 23, 2013 19:02:40 GMT -5
Cynthia already detailed the issues for Billboard 200. Streaming for songs is already a mess, even if it's more quantifiable. If they're going to count Spotify spins for users without a subscription, they need to account for services like Soundcloud. Youtube can advertise, but no one watches the advertisements anyway since you can skip them after five seconds. What about Google radio, when will it start counting? What's the exact ratio for radio/streaming/sales? In short, it's already susceptible to error and fraud and it's not an accurate representation of what people are actually "streaming." If they wanted to incorporate into the Hot 100, I think they should also have separate charts for Streams (Soundcloud, Youtube, iTunes radio--since USERS will not purchase the songs) and Streaming Subscriptions (which should have more points).
Testing is a must for albums. Billboard should keep sales/streams separate and retire the Hot 100/Billboard 200 when/if streaming/streaming radio does manage to take over sales and labels don't renew their contracts with iTunes radio.
|
|
|
Post by josh on Jun 23, 2013 19:15:01 GMT -5
Jay Z wanted that one million week so bad he would try anything. Really pathetic. Your trolling of every rap artist whose name isn't Eminem is getting tiring. And this is not to mention the acts/labels who withhold their albums from streaming for whatever reason. The main reason anyone does that is b/c they think it can hurt their sales, but if you make streaming part of the BB formula it actually uses their business decisions against them. That doesn't seem fair. The Hot 100 already incorporates streaming so that chart is discriminating against certain songs already. If they've changed that without a problem I don't see why it would stop them from changing the Billboard 200. Well, not JUST that reason. There are plenty of other reasons, as you and others have brought up, to not incorporate streaming, but this reason alone won't matter.
|
|
upsidedown
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2012
Posts: 10,604
|
Post by upsidedown on Jun 23, 2013 20:21:12 GMT -5
If they change the rules, that's just opening the floodgates. To measure the success of ANYTHING in this country, you go by units sold or the gross. That's just how it is. Changing the rules to include something that you don't pay for would be ridiculous. To judge the popularity, you need to have it based on buying popularity. If you go towards not having to buy something, then that just gets messy and creates chaos. I can stream any album I want, doesn't mean I like it. Theoretically I don't like all the albums I buy, but at least I had to put money out (per album) to buy it. I could just go and stream albums just for the f**k of it for free if I wanted, and something like that shouldn't be counted.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 20:36:13 GMT -5
They do that for songs already. Consumption of music no longer exclusively involves walking into Target and paying 10 bucks for your favorite album
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 20:56:42 GMT -5
Streaming being included is already a sore spot we already in a grey area. I purchase songs and albums I like but stream all kinds of shit for various reasons. The hot 100 is NOT 100% fair right now but the hot 200 is and I would hate for it to go that route. Let's not kid ourselves we all listen to and stream music we would never purchase. I just prefer my album chart be based on consumers going out to purchase it in a store or a online store.
|
|
|
Post by Peaches. [Ch, r. is] on Jun 23, 2013 20:58:58 GMT -5
How could they include streaming to the Billboard 200? What if some people only listen half of the album? Or only a couple of songs of the album. I don't see how that could work. It wouldn't make sense to me either. A standalone streaming album chart is one thing but to include it in a sales chart is pretty odd considering there's no way to count how many time people listen to physical or digital albums vs how many times they listen to streams. So streams are gonna count everytime someone listens to them but if you buy an album, listen to it 1000 times, it's only gonna count once? They'll have a bunch of kinks to work out.
|
|
|
Post by josh on Jun 23, 2013 21:10:50 GMT -5
How could they include streaming to the Billboard 200? What if some people only listen half of the album? Or only a couple of songs of the album. I don't see how that could work. It wouldn't make sense to me either. A standalone streaming album chart is one thing but to include it in a sales chart is pretty odd considering there's no way to count how many time people listen to physical or digital albums vs how many times they listen to streams. So streams are gonna count everytime someone listens to them but if you buy an album, listen to it 1000 times, it's only gonna count once? They'll have a bunch of kinks to work out. I'd have to check the ratio for airplay:sales:passive streaming:on demand streaming and whatnot for the Hot 100, but I'm pretty sure 1 sale has a lot more weight than 1 stream, so they've attempted to account for multiple listens on 1 sale. If that makes sense at all. My point being they've already taken what you're thinking about into account for the Hot 100. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, though. So I'm sure they would do the same for albums.
|
|
|
Post by cause_for_celebration on Jun 23, 2013 21:30:09 GMT -5
From my understanding, Billboard doesn't publish a "Streaming Albums" chart, but I wonder if they were to design one, how many track plays would be enough to count as a stream of an album by any individual user. I feel like Billboard should definitely consider some way to add streaming into the Billboard 200 but I feel like it is tricky.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Jun 23, 2013 22:50:24 GMT -5
Any steam of an album tack should count. It should be a total album track streams chart.
|
|
|
Post by slicknickshady on Jun 24, 2013 0:18:57 GMT -5
Jay Z wanted that one million week so bad he would try anything. Really pathetic. Your trolling of every rap artist whose name isn't Eminem is getting tiring. And this is not to mention the acts/labels who withhold their albums from streaming for whatever reason. The main reason anyone does that is b/c they think it can hurt their sales, but if you make streaming part of the BB formula it actually uses their business decisions against them. That doesn't seem fair. The Hot 100 already incorporates streaming so that chart is discriminating against certain songs already. If they've changed that without a problem I don't see why it would stop them from changing the Billboard 200. Well, not JUST that reason. There are plenty of other reasons, as you and others have brought up, to not incorporate streaming, but this reason alone won't matter. You are talking to someone, me, who has purchased 5 JAY Z albums. I'm not trolling anybody. I'm calling a spade a spade. He put on a solid concert the two times i saw him open for Eminem at CoPa in Detroit. I'm far from a Jay hater. Just thought this was a sad move he made.
|
|
DJ General
5x Platinum Member
Dupe
Joined: March 2010
Posts: 5,932
|
Post by DJ General on Jun 24, 2013 11:49:28 GMT -5
Jay Z wanted that one million week so bad he would try anything. Really pathetic. Are you throwing shade because Jay-Z is currently more relevant over Eminem?
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Jun 24, 2013 11:54:55 GMT -5
Do people even stream entire albums? At least enough to justify having a whole chart for it?
|
|
|
Post by KeepDeanWeird on Jun 24, 2013 12:11:58 GMT -5
denverd- the Samsung app is FREE- so there is absolutely no sale of any kind that involves the app itself or the Jay-Z album. At least that's what I understand to be the case. You are correct, but somebody paid for the album (Samsung) - that in my mind is a sale. For years, BB couldn't deal with "exclusive" or "Christian" outlets - even though those were legit sales. My point is that how people access and receive music continues to evolve. I certainly find this model - where someone pays for it - even a company - much more legit than including streaming albums on the chart.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2013 18:14:16 GMT -5
Jay Z wanted that one million week so bad he would try anything. Really pathetic. Your trolling of every rap artist whose name isn't Eminem is getting tiring. And this is not to mention the acts/labels who withhold their albums from streaming for whatever reason. The main reason anyone does that is b/c they think it can hurt their sales, but if you make streaming part of the BB formula it actually uses their business decisions against them. That doesn't seem fair. The Hot 100 already incorporates streaming so that chart is discriminating against certain songs already. If they've changed that without a problem I don't see why it would stop them from changing the Billboard 200. Well, not JUST that reason. There are plenty of other reasons, as you and others have brought up, to not incorporate streaming, but this reason alone won't matter. i consider songs different from whole albums. it's hard to fully quantify why, but I think labels still value album sales more so than single sales - we talk so much about the 90s when some would purposely withhold songs from being able to chart simply b/c they wanted the albums to sell more. They didn't care if that meant the song wouldn't chart...not that it made the Hot 100 irrelevant, but it certainly gave the BB 200 more weight imo. And it's the same now. There are some labels who don't mind their singles not charting as well as they should if they think it will result in the albums moving more units. And fans pick up on that too - Rihanna kept getting dragged for not having a #1 album even though she has a bunch of #1 singles. So yeah, I would find it much more annoying if, as an example, Red didn't get #1 on the album chart simply b/c it was not available for streaming, than I do about IKYWT not getting a #1 peak b/c it wasn't available for streaming. (I realize btw that the Red example is a bit farfetched since it sold so much its first week, but that scenario is actually something that could have very well happened to Unapologetic.) This does highlight the major dichotomy between the two charts though and is one reason why streaming still doesn't sit well with quite a few people (like @haunted's post for example). At least with the BB 200 you know that it is a straightforward chart where 'popularity' is measured by sales. It's not a perfect correlation, but overall it works. With the Hot 100 however there's this attempt to throw in every measure possible and chalk it up to trying to track overall popularity, but instead someone ends up pointing out that it really is just measuring which songs are bringing in the most revenue for the label...this is something that may or may not actually equate to a song being as popular as it is a money maker, and if measuring revenue is the purpose the chart is still inadequate b/c it doesn't measure how many times a song is used on tv, nor does it count video sales. Frankly I don't think even Billboard knows what the Hot 100 is supposed to measure anymore. It's kind of a mess. denverd- the Samsung app is FREE- so there is absolutely no sale of any kind that involves the app itself or the Jay-Z album. At least that's what I understand to be the case. You are correct, but somebody paid for the album (Samsung) - that in my mind is a sale. For years, BB couldn't deal with "exclusive" or "Christian" outlets - even though those were legit sales. My point is that how people access and receive music continues to evolve. I certainly find this model - where someone pays for it - even a company - much more legit than including streaming albums on the chart. I don't quite agree with this. For albums, Billboard strictly measures individual-consumer sales. If Jay-Z wants the Samsung purchase to count that is what RIAA certifications are for - I view that purchase as albums shipped, not albums sold. It would hardly be the first case where someone's certification was greater than the recorded sales at the time. However if one felt BB should reconsider what its album charts actually measure (i.e. making it more similar to what the Hot 100 attempts to do now which is measure all income streams as well as popularity), then counting the Samsung purchase wouldn't be out of line. I do agree that BB has been silly at times with what it wouldn't count - all those music club sales from the 90s and early 2000s come to mind. also apologies if anything seems rambly or nonsensical, I'm running on little sleep right now. But not little enough to get off the computer
|
|
|
Post by KeepDeanWeird on Jun 24, 2013 19:26:14 GMT -5
"I do agree that BB has been silly at times with what it wouldn't count - all those music club sales from the 90s and early 2000s come to mind."
Actually, music clubs went back to 60s, but the 11 albums/8-tracks/cassettes/CDs for a penny was truly giving it away. However, those clubs sold millions of other units at retail price. Those should have been included, but at least they ended up in an artists certifications. Some of the club sales were staggering.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,884
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Jun 24, 2013 20:07:23 GMT -5
Yeah, BB should just count sales to individual consumers, not a corporation.
When the Eagles' album was an exclusive, there probably were some outlets who went to Wal-Mart, bought the album and then sold it at their store. Wasn't there something in place that picked up on those "double transactions"?
|
|
|
Post by slicknickshady on Jun 25, 2013 0:04:14 GMT -5
Jay Z wanted that one million week so bad he would try anything. Really pathetic. Are you throwing shade because Jay-Z is currently more relevant over Eminem? LOL.
|
|
DJ General
5x Platinum Member
Dupe
Joined: March 2010
Posts: 5,932
|
Post by DJ General on Jun 25, 2013 0:32:38 GMT -5
....exactly
|
|
|
Post by areyoureadytojump on Jun 25, 2013 11:08:14 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 15:35:43 GMT -5
^Minor correction: Monday, July 8.
Not that he even needs it, other than to make his numbers look even prettier. His only competition that week is Ciara and Skylar Grey (assuming HITS' upcoming releases page is up-to-date).
|
|
π
³π
Έππ
²π
Ύ
Diamond Member
Banned
I will beach both of you off at the same time!
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 69,123
|
Post by π
³π
Έππ
²π
Ύ on Jul 1, 2013 15:50:38 GMT -5
Jay-Z could go platinum sooner with RIAA rule tweakEdna Gundersen, USA TODAY 4:39 p.m. EDT July 1, 2013 The Samsung giveaway of 'Magna Carta Holy Grail' won't add to Jay-Z's 'Billboard' total, but RIAA's rule change could give him platinum bragging rights pronto.Jay-Z's Magna Carta Holy Grail could get a quicker platinum certification from the Recording Industry Association of America, which just altered its rules regarding digital albums. The album, officially out July 9, will be available free on July 4 to the first 1 million Samsung phone users to download it with a special app. Jay-Z lost the battle to have the giveaway counted toward hisBillboard and SoundScan tally, but RIAA will accept the freebies, and the rap titan will be allowed to apply for certification upon delivery rather than be forced to wait 30 days, as earlier stipulated by the trade organization's regulations. An update posted by communications director Liz Kennedy on the RIAA website Monday stated: "By now, many of us in the music business, as well as Jay-Z fans, know that Samsung has purchased one million Magna Carta Holy Grail digital albums to be given away to the phone maker's customers. It is a novel and creative marketing move and it has rightly stimulated a healthy conversation about the sale's meaning and implications for the modern music business.
"For us, the move prompted a re-examination of our historic Gold & Platinum (G&P) Program award rules. As we dug through the records of audits, re-reviewed rules and consulted with our auditing firm of more than thirty years, Gelfand, Rennert & Feldman, we discovered one rule disparity that no longer makes sense.
"One of our program's requirements is that an album can become eligible for certification 30 days after release date. (There are other rules, of course β such as requiring that the price of the album meet certain requirements.) The 30-day rule exists to take into account potential returns of physical product β CDs, cassettes, vinyl, etc. that could be shipped to brick and mortar retailers and returned, in which case our auditors do not count the sales.
"When we first created the Digital Single Award in 2004, we elected not to impose any 30-day rule because there are very few digital returns. According to our auditing firm, digital returns on average account for less than two percent of sales included in reports provided by the labels for certification β most digital retailer Terms of Use/Service allow users to return products only under limited circumstances.
"Also at the time in 2004, sales of digital albums were virtually non-existent and accounted for a small fraction of overall digital sales. Fast forward a decade and that's obviously no longer the case.
"We think it's time for the RIAA β and Gelfand, Rennert & Feldman β to align our digital song and album certification requirements. That's why today we are officially updating this rule in our G&P Program requirements. Going forward, sales of albums in digital format will become eligible on the release date, while sales of albums in physical format will still become eligible for certification 30 days after the release date.
"Not only do we believe it's sensible and logical to align digital album rules with those we have maintained for digital singles since the program's inception, we also consider today's move in line with our larger efforts to modernize the G&P Program to reflect the new music marketplace. In May we announced the integration of on-demand streams to the program to more broadly recognize online demand for songs.
"The reality is that how fans consume music is changing, the music business is changing as labels and artists partner with a breathtaking array of new technology services, and the industry's premier award recognizing artists' commercial achievement should similarly keep pace. In short, we're continuing to move the 55-year-old program forward and it's a good day when music sales diversification and innovative strategies meet the RIAA's time-tested, gold standard requisites for certification." Source
|
|
Gold Soundz
5x Platinum Member
Banned
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 5,727
|
Post by Gold Soundz on Jul 8, 2013 22:08:25 GMT -5
Dream makes some good points.
FF to 7 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by areyoureadytojump on Jul 12, 2013 10:18:34 GMT -5
Now Gaga is going "the app." www.hitsdailydouble.com/news/rumormill.cgiTHEREβS AN APP FOR THAT? Here we go again, boys and girls. Lady Gaga says her new album ARTPOP will βbring the music industry into a new ageβ when itβs released as an app on November 11, the Telegraph reports. Lady Gaga made the announcement this morning on her Facebook page, and more than 40k fans like it so far. The ARTPOP app will combine "music, art, fashion and technology with a new interactive worldwide community," according to Gaga. The lead single is scheduled to hit on Aug. 19. The album/app will be available for pre-order on Sept. 1, way ahead of release. (7/12a)
|
|
|
Post by josh on Jul 13, 2013 14:23:00 GMT -5
This is completely different though. You actually will be buying the app (along with the album) like you would an album, not getting it free and Apple/Google buying all the apps from Interscope.
|
|