Billboard Hot 100 08/30/2014

[Kris]

Thank god SWM has no chance at #1. It looks like Taylor will debut at #1 next week after all.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Aug 20, 2014 14:30:27 GMT -5 allow that said:

Most of the songs in the 11-20 range seem like bigger hits than many in the top 10 right now-- is it just me or the chart's sampling frame becoming increasingly limited to twinks and tweens?

It's becoming limited to people who actually listen to the music rather than radio stations who choose the music for us. There is nothing wrong with that.

[allow that]

Aug 20, 2014 14:42:31 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

Aug 20, 2014 14:30:27 GMT -5 allow that said:

Most of the songs in the 11-20 range seem like bigger hits than many in the top 10 right now-- is it just me or the chart's sampling frame becoming increasingly limited to twinks and tweens?

It's becoming limited to people who actually listen to the music rather than radio stations who choose the music for us. There is nothing wrong with that.

It's becoming limited to stans who watch their fave five+ times a day on VEVO.

[emerald]

Aug 20, 2014 14:30:27 GMT -5 allow that said:

Most of the songs in the 11-20 range seem like bigger hits than many in the top 10 right now-- is it just me or the chart's sampling frame becoming increasingly limited to twinks and tweens?

That's exactly what I thought when reading the top 10 this week.

The Billboard top 10 from 10 years ago would laugh if they saw what was popular now.

[👑 Eloquent ™]

Aug 20, 2014 13:21:26 GMT -5 kanimal said:

Aug 20, 2014 13:06:00 GMT -5 areyoureadytojump said:

As for singles, Taylor Swift's ultra-Pop track "Shake It Off," appears headed to the 425-450k range in its opening week. The first single from her previous album, Red, opened with 623k in August 2012. (8/20a)

Ouch. With the airplay and streaming, that should still be enough to send it to #1 next week, but that's not the sales number they wanted.

Are you a part of her team? Her management? Taylor Swift herself? No? Then how would you know what they were expecting? You don't. Furthermore it would be silly to assume they expected the same astronomical debut "WANEGBT" experienced, given they have a good gauge from inside the industry and are more acutely aware than anyone of the decline in the digital market since 2012. This coupled with her complete shift to pop would dampen sales and I am sure they were well aware of this. Either way, I am sure they are just devestated at this wimpy 450k projection and potential #1 debut.

Try again.

[kanimal]

Aug 20, 2014 14:54:15 GMT -5 👑 Eloquent ™ said:

Aug 20, 2014 13:21:26 GMT -5 kanimal said:

Ouch. With the airplay and streaming, that should still be enough to send it to #1 next week, but that's not the sales number they wanted.

Are you a part of her team? Her management? Taylor Swift herself? No? Then how would you know what they were expecting? You don't. Furthermore it would be silly to assume they expected the same astronomical debut "WANEGBT" experienced, given they have a good gauge from inside the industry and are more acutely aware than anyone of the decline in the digital market since 2012. This coupled with her complete shift to pop would dampen sales and I am sure they were well aware of this. Either way, I am sure they are just devestated at this wimpy 450k projection and potential #1 debut.

Try again.

Ariana Grande sold 438K in her debut week.

Move along now.  Or at least buy yourself the beginnings of a clue.

[👑 Eloquent ™]

Aug 20, 2014 14:58:55 GMT -5 kanimal said:

Aug 20, 2014 14:54:15 GMT -5 👑 Eloquent ™ said:

Are you a part of her team? Her management? Taylor Swift herself? No? Then how would you know what they were expecting? You don't. Furthermore it would be silly to assume they expected the same astronomical debut "WANEGBT" experienced, given they have a good gauge from inside the industry and are more acutely aware than anyone of the decline in the digital market since 2012. This coupled with her complete shift to pop would dampen sales and I am sure they were well aware of this. Either way, I am sure they are just devestated at this wimpy 450k projection and potential #1 debut.

Try again.

Ariana Grande sold 438K in her debut week.

Move along now.

Point is what exactly?

[Deleted]

Aug 20, 2014 14:53:45 GMT -5 emerald said:

Aug 20, 2014 14:30:27 GMT -5 allow that said:

Most of the songs in the 11-20 range seem like bigger hits than many in the top 10 right now-- is it just me or the chart's sampling frame becoming increasingly limited to twinks and tweens?

That's exactly what I thought when reading the top 10 this week.

The Billboard top 10 from 10 years ago would laugh if they saw what was popular now.

And I laugh at "Slow Motion" and "Lean Back" being popular then.

[Fancy]

slightly disappointed that fancy couldn't break the streaming record though.

[emerald]

Aug 20, 2014 15:02:18 GMT -5 @gagalicious said:

Aug 20, 2014 14:53:45 GMT -5 emerald said:

That's exactly what I thought when reading the top 10 this week.

The Billboard top 10 from 10 years ago would laugh if they saw what was popular now.

And I laugh at "Slow Motion" and "Lean Back" being popular then.

Yeah,

It's just weird how different the charts have become.

Come to think of it, my post sounded like I applauded the past chart.

Can we change that?

[kanimal]

Aug 20, 2014 15:00:30 GMT -5 👑 Eloquent ™ said:

Aug 20, 2014 14:58:55 GMT -5 kanimal said:

Ariana Grande sold 438K in her debut week.

Move along now.

Point is what exactly?

Digital market is not dead for high-profile, well-executed releases.  If someone with a fraction of the star wattage sold 438K with a fraction of the release week publicity, there is no reason to act as if 425-450K for Taylor Swift is all rosy.

This notion that there is some standard "good sales" figure -- and that the artist, level of hype and artist's past sales performance are irrelevant -- is simply ignorant to how this business works.

TV ratings are in the toilet right now.  If the Super Bowl, which did like 111M viewers last year, did 75M viewers this year, people would FREAK OUT.  Under your argument, they shouldn't, because 75M is really awesome in this age of declining TV ratings. (and, yes, I recognize the analogy isn't perfect due to the business interest involved in the Super Bowl number - but my point is that people would also call it a bad rating - not just bad for advertisers).

If that still isn't satisfying, let's look at the estimates.  They've gone down from the original projection.  Even if you're saying I'm crazy for thinking Big Machine wanted this to perform on par with the previous lead single (and, trust me, I'm not), we now know that its Tuesday was not as strong as the experts expected.  That's a FACT.

And, let's continue, shall we?  Remember that there is a HUGE image element to the entertainment business.  So much value is placed on superficial achievements and how you can spin them--I mean, look at how record companies work to game the charts.  If Shake it Off doesn't have the best opening week of 2014, that's a HUGE blow from an image standpoint.  And that matters.

[jebsib]

Does anyone know Sales / Streaming and Airplay cover two different tracking periods?
You would think they would try to coordinate the schedules in order to measure apples to apples.

[Linnethia Monique]

Taylor can't do 800K in digital sales first week?! Flop. *End Sarcasm*

[kanimal]

[quote

Aug 20, 2014 14:53:45 GMT -5 emerald said:

Aug 20, 2014 14:30:27 GMT -5 allow that said:

Most of the songs in the 11-20 range seem like bigger hits than many in the top 10 right now-- is it just me or the chart's sampling frame becoming increasingly limited to twinks and tweens?

That's exactly what I thought when reading the top 10 this week.

The Billboard top 10 from 10 years ago would laugh if they saw what was popular now.

Do people really hate this Top Ten?

MAGIC!'s "Rude" is a straight-up jam.  "All About That Bass" is far catchier, thought-provoking and well-produced than any gimmick song has the right to be.  Stay With Me is a pitch-perfect ballad and a perfect introduction to one of the best vocalists of our generation.  Break Free - generic, but not terrible.  Fancy - as good as any cheesy hip-pop song with one of the best bridges ever on one of those songs.

Am I Wrong - elite pop song.  Problem - disruptive, absurdly catchy song.  Black Widow - not amazing, but not bad.  Chandelier - I hate this (I don't like the chorus, and just don't dig Australian Sia's super-forced island girl voice; and I say that as someone who is fine with Iggy Azalea's southern US accent), but it interestingly enough is one of the best-reviewed songs in the mix.  Bang Bang - it burned really quickly with me, but it's disruptive.

I'd love if Boom Clap were in the mix, as it's the best pure pop song released to radio this year, but I'm fine with this top ten.  I also like that it's made up almost entirely of new artists.  And while there might be too much Iggy and Ariana, note that they were not radio stars until this year.  So they still reflect new blood.

It's becoming limited to stans who watch their fave five+ times a day on VEVO.

I'm torn on this point.  While I do agree that it makes the chart less "organic," isn't there something to be said about a song/artist that makes people want to do that?  If "Break Free" makes fans go to great lengths to boost the chart score but "Boom Clap" doesn't, is it totally unreasonable to say Break Free is making the bigger overall impact?

[👑 Eloquent ™]

Aug 20, 2014 15:09:05 GMT -5 kanimal said:

Digital market is not dead for high-profile, well-executed releases.

Ermm, the overall digital market is down substantially since 2012. To assume that this would not have any impact on, even the "biggest" artist's, digital figures (debut weeks included) is, well, silly. Wasn't Ariana's debut the biggest digital debut this year (if not it was definitely close)? Shameful for Taylor to potentially "just" match that feat.

If someone with a fraction of the star wattage sold 438K with a fraction of the release week publicity, there is no reason to act as if 425-450K for Taylor Swift is all rosy.

Ariana's star power is through the roof atm. She is the latest it girl. For Taylor to come back and even match that level is just a testement to her consistency and ability to compete with newer/fresher acts. And I maintain the idea that her team would be perfectly happy/content with a 450k debut and #1 Hot 100 placement. Lol

This notion that there is some standard "good sales" figure -- and that the artist, level of hype and artist's past sales performance are irrelevant -- is simply ignorant to how this business works.

It is more ignorant in my view to expect, particularly giving the ever-changing climate within the music industry, every realse (single and album) to hit the same sales threshold time and time again. That thinking goes completely against what the industry and statistics have showed time and time again. Everyone and everything has a peak. Decline is inevetable and even if Taylor peaked with her last era there has been no nosedive to warrant a devestating or worrisome reaction. Point blank.

If that still isn't satisfying, let's look at the estimates.  They've gone down from the original projection.  Even if you're saying I'm crazy for thinking Big Machine wanted this to perform on par with the previous lead single (and, trust me, I'm not), we now know that its Tuesday was not as strong as the experts expected.  That's a FACT.

Those initial projections didn't come from her camp. Still doesn't give any idea of what they expected to determine whether or not they are happy or disappointed with updated projections.

If Shake it Off doesn't have the best opening week of 2014, that's a HUGE blow from an image standpoint.  And that matters.

Oh humiliating! Even the thought! I can't.

[Linnethia Monique]

Aug 20, 2014 15:24:27 GMT -5 kanimal said:

It's becoming limited to stans who watch their fave five+ times a day on VEVO.

I'm torn on this point.  While I do agree that it makes the chart less "organic," isn't there something to be said about a song/artist that makes people want to do that?  If "Break Free" makes fans go to great lengths to boost the chart score but "Boom Clap" doesn't, is it totally unreasonable to say Break Free is making the bigger overall impact?

Manipulating a chart doesn't have anything to do with impact. Fans and stans alike will do whatever it takes, regardless if the song is good or not, to get their "faves" to #1.

[Deleted]

Aug 20, 2014 15:09:05 GMT -5 kanimal said:

Aug 20, 2014 15:00:30 GMT -5 👑 Eloquent ™ said:

Point is what exactly?

Digital market is not dead for high-profile, well-executed releases.  If someone with a fraction of the star wattage sold 438K with a fraction of the release week publicity, there is no reason to act as if 425-450K for Taylor Swift is all rosy.

This notion that there is some standard "good sales" figure -- and that the artist, level of hype and artist's past sales performance are irrelevant -- is simply ignorant to how this business works.

TV ratings are in the toilet right now.  If the Super Bowl, which did like 111M viewers last year, did 75M viewers this year, people would FREAK OUT.  Under your argument, they shouldn't, because 75M is really awesome in this age of declining TV ratings. (and, yes, I recognize the analogy isn't perfect due to the business interest involved in the Super Bowl number - but my point is that people would also call it a bad rating - not just bad for advertisers).

If that still isn't satisfying, let's look at the estimates.  They've gone down from the original projection.  Even if you're saying I'm crazy for thinking Big Machine wanted this to perform on par with the previous lead single (and, trust me, I'm not), we now know that its Tuesday was not as strong as the experts expected.  That's a FACT.

And, let's continue, shall we?  Remember that there is a HUGE image element to the entertainment business.  So much value is placed on superficial achievements and how you can spin them--I mean, look at how record companies work to game the charts.  If Shake it Off doesn't have the best opening week of 2014, that's a HUGE blow from an image standpoint.  And that matters.

this statement is as absurd as the clue you think Ava needs to buy.

1) the biggest debut that has ever happened is only 200k more than Ari's numbers; by your own logic everyone's favorite divas ever are all fails b/c they have never managed to top Flo Rida, a perennial singles artist for the digital era if there ever was one.
2) you seem to be operating under the false assumption that a new artist's opening week should never outsell an older artist's opening. This makes no sense...like, at what point is it 'acceptable' for Ariana to do better than someone else then? is she supposed to wait until we've packed Taylor and Katy and Gaga and shipped them off to the former-pop-stars old folks' home? it's entirely possible for artists' singles to do well at the same time and that is precisely what is happening here. i also think it's highly dismissive of Ariana's nick fanbase or the hype campaign that her team also set up for "Problem." you're basically going out of your way to diminish Ari's star just so you can try to make Taylor's opening week look bad, but all that does is make you look kind of ridiculous.
3) never mind the fact this opening week 'battle' is moot, since we all know Taylor's album opening week alone will trump all. if i were her or her team and i was that concerned about 'image' or spinning record achievements, i'd be trying to be the first artist to have three albums open with more than 1 million, NOT getting my knickers in a bunch over an opening sales week achievement that isn't even currently held by a 'notable' superstar, let alone icon or legend. personally I didn't expect SIO to open quite as well as WANEGBT, and also don't expect 1989 to sell as much as Red. that by no means indicates that SIO or 1989 won't do well, period. this is the luxury Taylor has afforded herself by being such a sales force for her first four albums, that even with a drop on the fifth she will continue to outpace most others.

tl;dr I'm with Ava that you really don't know what Taylor or her team are thinking, and even if you were right that they are concerned with superficial achievements they'd be thinking on a MUCH higher level than you are. so stop trying to create some struggle for her that simply doesn't exist and sit.

let me add that Taylor's singles have always been a means to her albums' end - that is, while she obviously needs the songs to be popular, their overall sales or chart peaks have never been quite as important to her image as her overall album sales. That's why it doesn't matter, for example, that IKYWT and WANEGBT never broke 4 million; the album did, and in this sales market that's the rarer (and thus more impressive) feat.

[kanimal]

Aug 20, 2014 15:31:30 GMT -5 👑 Eloquent ™ said:

Aug 20, 2014 15:09:05 GMT -5 kanimal said:

Digital market is not dead for high-profile, well-executed releases.

Ermm, the overall digital market is down substantially since 2012. To assume that this would not have any impact on, even the "biggest" artist's, digital figures (debut weeks included) is, well, silly. Wasn't Ariana's debut the biggest digital debut this year (if not it was definitely close)? Shameful for Taylor to potentially "just" match that feat.

If someone with a fraction of the star wattage sold 438K with a fraction of the release week publicity, there is no reason to act as if 425-450K for Taylor Swift is all rosy.

Ariana's star power is through the roof atm. She is the latest it girl. For Taylor to come back and even match that level is just a testement to her consistency and ability to compete with newer/fresher acts. And I maintain the idea that her team would be perfectly happy/content with a 450k debut and #1 Hot 100 placement. Lol

This notion that there is some standard "good sales" figure -- and that the artist, level of hype and artist's past sales performance are irrelevant -- is simply ignorant to how this business works.

It is more ignorant in my view to expect, particularly giving the ever-changing climate within the music industry, every realse (single and album) to hit the same sales threshold time and time again. That thinking goes completely against what the industry and statistics have showed time and time again. Everyone and everything has a peak. Decline is inevetable and even if Taylor peaked with her last era there has been no nosedive to warrant a devestating or worrisome reaction. Point blank.

If that still isn't satisfying, let's look at the estimates.  They've gone down from the original projection.  Even if you're saying I'm crazy for thinking Big Machine wanted this to perform on par with the previous lead single (and, trust me, I'm not), we now know that its Tuesday was not as strong as the experts expected.  That's a FACT.

Those initial projections didn't come from her camp. Still doesn't give any idea of what they expected to determine whether or not they are happy or disappointed with updated projections.

If Shake it Off doesn't have the best opening week of 2014, that's a HUGE blow from an image standpoint.  And that matters.

Oh humiliating! Even the thought! I can't.

The insane thing about all this is that you're ultimately supporting my thesis.  By talking about down trends and how everyone has to fall eventually, you're suggesting that Taylor Swift potentially reached a peak during the last cycle.  That's, interestingly enough, exactly what I'm arguing.  It's what everyone should be arguing - because it's a major news story.

The difference in our opinions comes down to the implication of that peak.  You don't seem to read it as a negative, mainly under this notion that Big Machine has already conceded that she's cooled off.

I just don't think their behavior supports that.  I don't see why logic should support that.  She remains one of the most talked about celebrities.  She's coming off an album that was far hotter than its predecessor AND actually helped her make the transition into becoming a legitimate mainstream radio star.

The idea that she's less hot now than she was in August 2012, while seemingly true, is not something that should just be brushed off as a "whatev."  It's a disappointing sign.

(BTW - I don't expect everyone to agree - clearly most don't - but I do expect you to have enough logic not to act as if normal, aggregate standards apply to Taylor.  You have to evaluate Taylor Swift as Taylor Swift.  This is like when people tried to portray PRISM as a huge smash because most albums don't do 250K+)

Aug 20, 2014 15:38:50 GMT -5 Linnethia Monique said:

Aug 20, 2014 15:24:27 GMT -5 kanimal said:

I'm torn on this point.  While I do agree that it makes the chart less "organic," isn't there something to be said about a song/artist that makes people want to do that?  If "Break Free" makes fans go to great lengths to boost the chart score but "Boom Clap" doesn't, is it totally unreasonable to say Break Free is making the bigger overall impact?

Manipulating a chart doesn't have anything to do with impact. Fans and stans alike will do whatever it takes, regardless if the song is good or not, to get their "faves" to #1.

That certainly sounds like an impact was made...

[Spidey]

Are people seriously arguing over whether or not selling 425-450k is an impressive figure?

[Deleted]

Aug 20, 2014 15:04:00 GMT -5 Fancy said:

slightly disappointed that fancy couldn't break the streaming record though.

I know...I was hoping that a video of someone named Miley wouldn't cause the track to hold the record, even tied with someone else, for the most weeks at #1 on Streaming Songs. Oh well.

Aug 20, 2014 15:18:10 GMT -5 jebsib said:

Does anyone know Sales / Streaming and Airplay cover two different tracking periods?
You would think they would try to coordinate the schedules in order to measure apples to apples.

Was wondering the same thing lol...doesn't really make sense. Does anyone know why this is uncoordinated? My guess is for songs to debut with airplay only chart points to avoid songs debuting at #1 all the time (with the 8th day effect being in the second week and whatnot...probably contributing to Roar not being able to jump to #1 right away).

[kanimal]

Aug 20, 2014 15:51:50 GMT -5 Spidey said:

Are people seriously arguing over whether or not selling 425-450k is an impressive figure?

Why is "for a lead Taylor Swift single that received unparalleled hype and is receiving monstrous airplay and exposure" missing from your post?

I'm going insane at people not understanding that you don't compare Taylor Swift to the market average.  You compare her to Taylor Swift standards.

[Spidey]

Aug 20, 2014 15:53:42 GMT -5 @markg94 said:

Aug 20, 2014 15:18:10 GMT -5 jebsib said:

Does anyone know Sales / Streaming and Airplay cover two different tracking periods?
You would think they would try to coordinate the schedules in order to measure apples to apples.

Was wondering the same thing lol...doesn't really make sense. Does anyone know why this is uncoordinated? My guess is for songs to debut with airplay only chart points to avoid songs debuting at #1 all the time (with the 8th day effect being in the second week and whatnot...probably contributing to Roar not being able to jump to #1 right away).

Billboard has stated in the past that it is to have the most up to date airplay figures. It is kind of odd to have different tracking periods for airplay and sales/streaming, but then again this is Billboard... I think the genre airplay charts having the same tracking period as sales/streaming, Billboard just uses the most up to date airplay for the Hot 100.

[icefire9]

Aug 20, 2014 15:51:50 GMT -5 Spidey said:

Are people seriously arguing over whether or not selling 425-450k is an impressive figure?

Seriously. That's not even mentioning that opening week sales don't always correlate well with overall sales. Roar opened with less than Born this Way and WANEGBT, but it ended up outselling both of them.

[Spidey]

Aug 20, 2014 15:55:46 GMT -5 kanimal said:

Aug 20, 2014 15:51:50 GMT -5 Spidey said:

Are people seriously arguing over whether or not selling 425-450k is an impressive figure?

Why is "for a lead Taylor Swift single that received unparalleled hype and is receiving monstrous airplay and exposure" missing from your post?

I'm going insane at people not understanding that you don't compare Taylor Swift to the market average.  You compare her to Taylor Swift standards.

You have to keep in mind Ariana had been hyping the release of "Problem" on her social media for weeks and even had it available for pre-order. It is not like Ariana was a complete unknown as well. She wasn't a nobody that out of the blue sold 438k. She has a strong fanbase that has only been growing since her last album. There were a lot of factors as to why it sold well, including Iggy Azalea being featured and blowing up at the same time as "Problem" was released.

Sure there was hype for a lead single by Taylor Swift. She's a huge star, but there was no confirmation of the single until right before it was released. Outside of giving clues for the Yahoo stream, Taylor and her team weren't hyping a new single. Granted, a lot of people had an idea one was coming.

You also have to take into consideration the growth of streaming, even in a short four month span. Streaming is on the rise, meaning sales are dropping. Sales this summer have been poor compared to the Spring.

[when the pawn...]

To act like anything less than the near-record breaking opening of Taylor's previous lead single is a big disappointment is a major mistake. There is no one in the industry who should/would see 450k opening week for a single as a disappointment. Not Taylor Swift, not Adele (really - I would think 450k would be a strong start for her), not Ariana Grande, not Lady Gaga, not Katy Perry, not Rihanna, not Beyonce, not Justin, not Eminem, I can go on and on.

Of course some people here (and I'm sure some people in the industry) couldn't help but want to see sky-high numbers at the 700-800k level but how in the hell is that realistic? Perhaps hindsight is 20/20 but to realistically imagine anyone selling 800,000 singles in a week in August of 2014 is absurd. This is Taylor Swift's 5th lead single and it's headed for the only Hot 100 #1 debut of the year, despite explicitly alienating a large portion of her fan base. I'm confused as to why this argument is happening. As for the future of this single's success and/or album sales, who knows. Hopefully she has some better songs than SIO because I don't think it's very good.

Also, isn't the huge exposure and radio airplay very similar to SO many other hyped lead singles by pop stars in the last few years? Did they all sell 500k+?

p.s. I don't like Taylor Swift. But her sales prowess 2006-present is out of this world.

[Gary]

For those who think the "digital market is dead except for high profile releases", can you tell me what "dead" means?

#1 still gets around 200K a week. Forget what this weeks # is but anyway.....Are we confusing the recent decline with death?

I think of "dead" as 8-tracks and cassettes.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

[Spidey]

Aug 20, 2014 16:28:33 GMT -5 Gary said:

For those who think the "digital market is dead except for high profile releases", can you tell me what "dead" means?

#1 still gets around 200K a week. Forget what this weeks # is but anyway.....Are we confusing the recent decline with death?

I think of "dead" as 8-tracks and cassettes.

I don't think digital sales are dead, I just think they are on a decline because of the rise of streaming.

[YourFaveIsAFlop]

Aug 20, 2014 15:38:50 GMT -5 Linnethia Monique said:

Aug 20, 2014 15:24:27 GMT -5 kanimal said:

I'm torn on this point.  While I do agree that it makes the chart less "organic," isn't there something to be said about a song/artist that makes people want to do that?  If "Break Free" makes fans go to great lengths to boost the chart score but "Boom Clap" doesn't, is it totally unreasonable to say Break Free is making the bigger overall impact?

Manipulating a chart doesn't have anything to do with impact. Fans and stans alike will do whatever it takes, regardless if the song is good or not, to get their "faves" to #1.

Nobody has an online fan base with the power to manipulate charts in any meaningful way. 

[mluv]

Digital sales are down 13% from last year so not dead but in decline. We've had several weeks in a row where the number one song was under 200k. Meghan Trainor's over 200k this week is beginning to seem like an anomaly and not the norm.

As for Taylor Swift, I think some people write on here using all kinds of inflated numbers that don't match the reality of todays music business just so they can say flop, flop, flop. That's ridiculous. Maybe those people had their favs called flop (Lady Gaga fan?) and are looking for revenge.

Taylor Swift was able to sell so much because she had that appeal to pop and country which doubled her fan base. With country ditching her for the most part, I'm not going to be surprised if she comes in below some people's expectation.


On a side note, I'm disappointed that Sam Smith never got a chance to get his number 1.