surfy
Diamond Member
Irreplaceable
learning and growing
Joined: September 2013
Posts: 18,149
Pronouns: (she/they)
|
Post by surfy on Nov 13, 2014 18:30:07 GMT -5
I liked the 80's aerobics video for Shake It Off, but if her label had it removed I don't see why it should count for them. Why should they get an advantage in the charts for a video they obviously disapproved of. Very shady that Shake it Off got to number 1 again based on a video they think violated their copyright. Doesn't matter. It fits all the requirements for the streaming rule... not "shady" at all. All the label did was prevent further exposure of the song, and further Hot 100 advantages... they didn't erase the previous streams though. |
|
popstop
6x Platinum Member
Pulse's Summer Intern
Advancing the Mountain Time Zone for all mankind
|
Post by popstop on Nov 13, 2014 18:57:54 GMT -5
If anything Taylor's achievement should be viewed as suspect since it was done with instant grat promo singles. was the first Taylor album that had a pre-order and instant grat tracks, and as we know neither charted in the top 10. All of her previous promo singles were released as individual singles, they landed in the top 10 on their own merit. Well, OK. So I checked. I mean a top 10 is a top 10 I suppose, but both Begin Again and Red made the top 10 for one week, and then never came close again. Begin Again was a promo single when it debuted in the top 10 and it was only after that that they decided to promote it as the second single (which was immediately overshadowed by I Knew You Were Trouble). It did not rebound into the top 10 after that; it never even rebounded into the top half of the chart after that one week. Begin Again 7-52-70-78-OFF 1 week-68-71-73-78-77-78-75-76-63-73-73-73-78-75-71-65-OFF Same thing with Red, which was released the next week. It was a promo single first when it debuted in the top 10 and that became a single many, many months later. It actually never charted as far as I can tell once it was an official single. It was off the chart 3 weeks after its top ten debut, and reappeared once when the album was released and then again in light of Xmas iTunes gift cards. Red 6-54-77-OFF 1 week-89-OFF 9 weeks-80-OFF Both songs hit the top 10 "on their own merit", I guess, if you mean they had the sales to do so. But those were anticipatory sales ahead of the album, and not so much because the songs were burning up the radio/being streamed. |
|
Kinney
Gold Member
Joined: December 2012
Posts: 581
|
Post by Kinney on Nov 13, 2014 19:05:45 GMT -5
Well by "on their own merit", I mean people had to press buy and download the songs for them to chart as well as they did. People did not get an instant download of the songs when they pre-ordered the album, they didn't get emails from iTunes to remind them their instant grat was available, their placement on the iTunes chart was based on how many people were buying the song in real time.
I was trying to dispel the notion that her previous top 10 promotional singles were "instant grats". I don't see how their subsequent Hot 100 chart runs have any bearing on the legitimacy of their top 10 placement.
|
|
Daniel Collins
4x Platinum Member
With every broken bone, I swear I lived
|
Post by Daniel Collins on Nov 13, 2014 21:26:12 GMT -5
Taylor Swift Still No. 1 on Hot 100, Ariana Grande & The Weeknd Hit Top 10"Shake," the lead single from 1989, which tops the Billboard 200 for a second week with 402,000 sold, according to Nielsen SoundScan, additionally crowns the Streaming Songs chart (2-1) after six (nonconsecutive) weeks at No. 2. The song jumps by 50 percent to 1.6 million 16.1 million U.S. streams Nov. 3-9, according to Nielsen BDS, tacking on the chart's top Streaming Gainer award. "Wait," you might ask, "how does Swift make such a big gain in streaming after her well-publicized removal of the song (and her catalog) from free streaming on Spotify?" The answer: the popularity of numerous user-generated videos (many of which have since been removed) featuring the song's official audio; in particular, a clip set to an '80s-styled aerobic workout made the rounds on BuzzFeed, Huffington Post and other sites, garnering more than 7 million global views before being taken down by Swift's distribution label, Universal Music Group. Just noticed that they fixed that part. |
|
popstop
6x Platinum Member
Pulse's Summer Intern
Advancing the Mountain Time Zone for all mankind
|
Post by popstop on Nov 13, 2014 23:27:06 GMT -5
Well by "on their own merit", I mean people had to press buy and download the songs for them to chart as well as they did. People did not get an instant download of the songs when they pre-ordered the album, they didn't get emails from iTunes to remind them their instant grat was available, their placement on the iTunes chart was based on how many people were buying the song in real time. I was trying to dispel the notion that her previous top 10 promotional singles were "instant grats". I don't see how their subsequent Hot 100 chart runs have any bearing on the legitimacy of their top 10 placement. Ah, I see. The comment you had mentioned about the promo singles being actual singles is what I was pinpointing. My point was that it was when they were "promo" for the album that they hit top 10, but once they were legit singles on their own, they fared poorly. I don't think anyone is questioning whether Taylor had four songs in the top 10 or if they "count" as top 10. But I think we can all agree that not all top 10 songs are created equal. Yes, one week of great sales can get you a week in the top ten, but when you compare that to singles that spend a couple months in the top 10 because they manage to hit all the buttons repeatedly - airplay, streaming, and sales - the latter is clearly and deservedly the bigger hit. |
|
mluv
Gold Member
Joined: September 2013
Posts: 540 
|
Post by mluv on Nov 13, 2014 23:52:10 GMT -5
I liked the 80's aerobics video for Shake It Off, but if her label had it removed I don't see why it should count for them. Why should they get an advantage in the charts for a video they obviously disapproved of. Very shady that Shake it Off got to number 1 again based on a video they think violated their copyright. Doesn't matter. It fits all the requirements for the streaming rule... not "shady" at all. All the label did was prevent further exposure of the song, and further Hot 100 advantages... they didn't erase the previous streams though. I'm pretty sure you're right that it fits all the technical requirements. However if they consider that the music was placed illegally online to the point where they demand it be taken off, then it should not count towards the hot 100 chart in the same way that illegal downloads of her songs don't count towards that chart. Imagine if Billboard went to the various piracy sites and added all the albums that were stolen for Taylor Swift and added that to her total albums sold. If they don't do that, then it seems ridiculous to use an illegal youtube video to put her at number one--and per that article in Billboard, that's what did put her over the top. |
|
kanimal
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,048 
|
Post by kanimal on Nov 13, 2014 23:55:17 GMT -5
Doesn't matter. It fits all the requirements for the streaming rule... not "shady" at all. All the label did was prevent further exposure of the song, and further Hot 100 advantages... they didn't erase the previous streams though. I'm pretty sure you're right that it fits all the technical requirements. However if they consider that the music was placed illegally online to the point where they demand it be taken off, then it should not count towards the hot 100 chart in the same way that illegal downloads of her songs don't count towards that chart. Imagine if Billboard went to the various piracy sites and added all the albums that were stolen for Taylor Swift and added that to her total albums sold. If they don't do that, then it seems ridiculous to use an illegal youtube video to put her at number one--and per that article in Billboard, that's what did put her over the top. Completely different scenarios. When you watched the aerobics video, you were, in fact, streaming "Shake it Off." Nothing shady about it counting towards the "Shake it Off" streaming score. When you illegally download "Shake it Off," you're not buying "Shake it Off." So it shouldn't count towards sales. (And if authorization matters to you, note that Taylor Swift personally endorsed it and sent thousands of hits to the video) |
|
surfy
Diamond Member
Irreplaceable
learning and growing
Joined: September 2013
Posts: 18,149
Pronouns: (she/they)
|
Post by surfy on Nov 13, 2014 23:55:52 GMT -5
Doesn't matter. It fits all the requirements for the streaming rule... not "shady" at all. All the label did was prevent further exposure of the song, and further Hot 100 advantages... they didn't erase the previous streams though. I'm pretty sure you're right that it fits all the technical requirements. However if they consider that the music was placed illegally online to the point where they demand it be taken off, then it should not count towards the hot 100 chart in the same way that illegal downloads of her songs don't count towards that chart. Imagine if Billboard went to the various piracy sites and added all the albums that were stolen for Taylor Swift and added that to her total albums sold. If they don't do that, then it seems ridiculous to use an illegal youtube video to put her at number one--and per that article in Billboard, that's what did put her over the top. I see a difference between downloads and streaming... There's no way for Billboard to track illegal downloads anyways, but streaming is different. I am just stating my opinion, so I'd love to hear other people's perspectives on this topic as well. Also a question, if the song counted as a stream for Taylor, did she get paid for it? |
|
Juanca
Diamond Member
Enjoying work, family/personal life with partner and doggies, and music. I couldn't ask for more :)
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 11,168
|
Post by Juanca on Nov 14, 2014 1:20:15 GMT -5
I think the whole consideration of streaming points is not Crystal clear yet tbh.
For example, the whole issue of why the views for the video ad for Let it go and Say something (right?) were not counted for the hot 100 because there was no link to the single or logo or some other type of linkage to the song. People streamed the videos too and they were viewed for similar reasons as the SIO video but their points were not counted because of that 'technicality'.
Another whole issue is whether those types of streams are song or video oriented. I think some YouTube videos have obvious connections to the song but others do not (eg harlem Shake, the video of the first kiss campaign).
|
|
superbu
Charting
Joined: April 2004
Posts: 375
|
Post by superbu on Nov 14, 2014 5:41:31 GMT -5
literally no one knew Woody Allen said that. Such a weird headline. No one under 40, you mean. I knew it. |
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,058
|
Post by felipe on Nov 14, 2014 11:38:58 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure you're right that it fits all the technical requirements. However if they consider that the music was placed illegally online to the point where they demand it be taken off, then it should not count towards the hot 100 chart in the same way that illegal downloads of her songs don't count towards that chart. Imagine if Billboard went to the various piracy sites and added all the albums that were stolen for Taylor Swift and added that to her total albums sold. If they don't do that, then it seems ridiculous to use an illegal youtube video to put her at number one--and per that article in Billboard, that's what did put her over the top. I see a difference between downloads and streaming... There's no way for Billboard to track illegal downloads anyways, but streaming is different. I am just stating my opinion, so I'd love to hear other people's perspectives on this topic as well. Also a question, if the song counted as a stream for Taylor, did she get paid for it? I don't quite get it. If Taylor was getting paid for those streams and they counted towards Billboard, why have the video removed? Did they not pay as well as Vevo streams or something? |
|
surfy
Diamond Member
Irreplaceable
learning and growing
Joined: September 2013
Posts: 18,149
Pronouns: (she/they)
|
Post by surfy on Nov 14, 2014 12:05:33 GMT -5
I see a difference between downloads and streaming... There's no way for Billboard to track illegal downloads anyways, but streaming is different. I am just stating my opinion, so I'd love to hear other people's perspectives on this topic as well. Also a question, if the song counted as a stream for Taylor, did she get paid for it? I don't quite get it. If Taylor was getting paid for those streams and they counted towards Billboard, why have the video removed? Did they not pay as well as Vevo streams or something? I don't even know if they paid her. But I'm guessing they didn't want to take focus away from Blank Space's video and therefore hurting it's chances of going #1... But that's just my theory. |
|
kanimal
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,048
|
Post by kanimal on Nov 14, 2014 12:12:04 GMT -5
Wait - why are we thinking Taylor Swift got paid for the aerobics video?
|
|
surfy
Diamond Member
Irreplaceable
learning and growing
Joined: September 2013
Posts: 18,149
Pronouns: (she/they)
|
Post by surfy on Nov 14, 2014 12:29:22 GMT -5
Wait - why are we thinking Taylor Swift got paid for the aerobics video? I don't know I was just asking. I still think it deserved to be counted, but I was just asking.  |
|
WotUNeed
2x Platinum Member
Deacon Blues
Joined: April 2010
Posts: 2,935
|
Post by WotUNeed on Nov 14, 2014 18:54:27 GMT -5
Wait - why are we thinking Taylor Swift got paid for the aerobics video? It is possible for unofficial videos to generate revenue (I like referring back to this article from "Harlem Shake"'s prime that explains it nicely), so I imagine that's why there was the question of whether the aerobics video generated revenue for Swift and company. In this case, my guess would be that the problem leading to actively seeking removal came from the song being mashed up with copyrighted content that someone else owns (the footage from the Crystal Light National Aerobic Championship). |
|
forg
2x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,356
|
Post by forg on Nov 14, 2014 23:09:25 GMT -5
Nice to see a song that debuted at #1 to have longevity
|
|
