|
|
Post by areyoureadytojump on May 12, 2020 8:33:06 GMT -5
WHY would you want to discredit an artist for getting a Diamond album?
10 million albums were made in a factory. That costs $.
Shipped via plane/truck. That costs $.
Sold in a brick and mortar store. Employee costs, taxes, electricity, etc... That costs $.
Albums were $11.99. That cost the consumer $.
Artists/labels actually made money buy selling albums.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,628
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 12, 2020 8:40:04 GMT -5
Sweetie, Madonna isn't even comparable to Drake. They are not on the same level. Have you ever dived into her discography? She explores more sounds and artistry in half an album than Drake does in his whole career. Madonna will be remembered decades from now while Drake will be forgotten under his one-not discography. Record or not š
People who don't like Hip-Hop to begin with running to discredit a Hip-Hop artist. What's new? The fact is: Drake is now tied for most top 10 hits in history. Say your congratulations or move on! Acting pitiful and bitter won't erase the record. Well, I like hip-hop and still think it's a lame comparison/parallel. Drake on "What's My Name?" is nothing compared to, say, Madonna's "Frozen." Or maybe you're the person in the group project who writes the introduction, does nothing else, and takes the A along with everyone who did all of the actual work. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2020 8:41:00 GMT -5
Records are made to be broken.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreatdivine on May 12, 2020 8:42:21 GMT -5
Trust that people will find a way to do that even though it's very hard to get an album to go Diamond off streams alone. No, no. MyĀ point was should we discredit Madonna/The Beatles/Garth Brooks/Mariah Carey/Eagles ... because it was easier to do it back then.
A Diamond album in the past was an album that sold insane amount in first year and second year maybe. A Diamond album going in the future will be an album with insane longevity. Like BB&B is shaping to be or Scorpion, Take Care released 2011 sold (500K+ units in 2019) 8 years after release and is already at 6M+.
Should we discredit the old legendary artists achievements ?
Okay. I get your point now. Well, personally, I've always thought it silly to try to discredit or undermine the achievements of any artist from any era. Artists are born when they're born and they have to build careers in whatever era they find themselves in. There are artists who started their careers in the physical era and faded out in the turn of the digital era because their careers couldn't transition well enough. There are artists who were dominant in the digital era who are non-factors in the streaming era and then there are some artists like Eminem who started off in the physical era, transitioned well into the digital era and are still doing well in the streaming era. It's a different case for every artist. One of the things I've grown to dislike is the tendency of people to undermine the current streaming era. It's especially worse when people try to downplay the achievements of someone especially dominant like Drake who debuted in the digital era (where he was largely successful: several 400-600K+ album debut weeks, top 10 hits and over 70 Hot 100 entries, even though some people try to act like his career didn't start till 2016) and transitioned perfectly into the streaming era where he's even more dominant. Every era has its difficulties and the same way there are certain acts who are dominant in the streaming era while others aren't is the same case for other eras - the physical and digital eras also had acts who weren't nearly as successful as others. It's always tricky trying to compare success, dominance and records across different music eras, but surely there's a way to give artists from each era their credit without cutting anyone down to uplift another person. Most importantly, it's crucial that in the process of trying to poke holes at the success of the artists who are dominant in the streaming era, people don't miss out on current icons and future legends being born right in front of our eyes. Every era will have it's legends and they all deserve their respect and their credit for their success because it isn't easy being successful in any era. |
|
GP
4x Platinum Member
TOOOO BE LOOOVED
Joined: December 2017
Posts: 4,974 
|
Post by GP on May 12, 2020 8:42:58 GMT -5
WHY would you want to discredit an artist for getting a Diamond album? 10 million albums were made in a factory. That costs $. Shipped via plane/truck. That costs $. Sold in a brick and mortar store. Employee costs, taxes, electricity, etc... That costs $. Albums were $11.99. That cost the consumer $. Artists/labels actually made money buy selling albums. why would you discredit an artist for having multiple top10s in the streaming era?? it might feel easier for them to get it now, but to have such a base that consistently streams albums enough to make them be the top songs of the week (despite no radio for example) is impressive. Hence, these Drake top10s are impressive. |
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,923
|
Post by HolidayGuy on May 12, 2020 8:43:35 GMT -5
If we want to talk about history, Bing Crosby has far more No. 1s and top 10s than any other act.
|
|
strongerq
Platinum Member
Joined: August 2019
Posts: 1,508
|
Post by strongerq on May 12, 2020 8:45:50 GMT -5
WHY would you want to discredit an artist for getting a Diamond album? 10 million albums were made in a factory. That costs $. Shipped via plane/truck. That costs $. Sold in a brick and mortar store. Employee costs, taxes, electricity, etc... That costs $. Albums were $11.99. That cost the consumer $. Artists/labels actually made money buy selling albums. I said they shouldn't be discredited.
So a Diamond album is harder to get now than in the 90s, when beerbongs & bentleys/ Views (or any other album) reaches that status, should we discredit. The answer is NO.
The point i was making is whenever a new artist breaks a record it is always: "it is due to new era it is easier now". Well if that is the case when a streaming artist gets a Diamond album we should look at earlier Diamond albums as easily achieved.
Madonna's top 40s are harder achieved than Drake's & Diamond album by a new artist is harder to achieve than legacy acts. -We all know this.
But we shouldn't discredit the other side.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,628
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 12, 2020 8:51:45 GMT -5
Having the most Top 10s is a record thatās much easier to attain because of the digital era, yes. Madonna got nearly all of her Top 10s pre-iTunes/Spotify through physical copies, which is a monumental feat. However, if itās an easy record to beat because of the digital era, why has it taken nearly 20 years? Madonna broke the record in 2002, when āDie Another Dayā became her 35th Top 10. In conclusion, maybe both sides are right? Yeah, itās an easier record to break now, but no one short of an icon would have the numbers to do so in the first place. Drakeās presence in music will be felt for decades to come. It makes sense that heās breaking the record. I mean, look at the names on this list. 38, Drake 38, Madonna 34, The Beatles 31, Rihanna 30, Michael Jackson 28, Mariah Carey 28, Stevie Wonder 27, Janet Jackson 27, Elton John 25, Elvis Presley 25, Taylor Swift 24, Lil Wayne 23, The Rolling Stones 23, Paul McCartney 23, Whitney Houston 22, Eminem 21, Jay-Z 20, Chicago 20, The Supremes 19, Prince 19, Beyonce 18, Nicki Minaj 18, Justin Bieber 18, Marvin Gaye 18, Kanye West 17, Aretha Franklin 17, Ludacris 17, Justin Timberlake 16, Connie Francis 16, Daryl Hall & John Oates 16, Rod Stewart If scoring top 10 hits was as easy as everyone swears it is, there'd be a lot more names from a lot more artists who debuted in the digital era, but there aren't. After a while, people just need to stop with this whole "it was harder back then" talk and give credit to Drake. If it was easy to do what he does on the charts, everyone would be doing it. Well, the 'digital era' lasted all of what? 10 years? That wasn't a lot of time for artists to rack up the hits. If anything is easier, it's the streaming era where 'album bombs' happen so an artist can get top 10s off tracks that impact for 1 week when the album drops. It of course still takes a popular artist to be able to do that, so I am not saying it's easy; just saying that possibility is there whereas it didn't exist in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s. |
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,628
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 12, 2020 8:56:47 GMT -5
Trust that people will find a way to do that even though it's very hard to get an album to go Diamond off streams alone. No, no. My point was should we discredit Madonna/The Beatles/Garth Brooks/Mariah Carey/Eagles ... because it was easier to do it back then. A Diamond album in the past was an album that sold insane amount in first year and second year maybe. A Diamond album going in the future will be an album with insane longevity. Like BB&B is shaping to be or Scorpion, Take Care released 2011 sold (500K+ units in 2019) 8 years after release and is already at 6M+. Should we discredit the old legendary artists achievements ?
Ultimately these things shouldn't even be compared tbh. I think there should be different criteria pre-streaming and post-streaming. |
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,923
|
Post by HolidayGuy on May 12, 2020 8:59:31 GMT -5
^I always say the digital/streaming era, because it's the digital era that made it possible for all tracks of an album to chart- and for the Glee invasion. :) Before streaming took off, we saw album tracks charting, but, yes, it's the streaming era where the album bomb became the norm for newer acts who are heavily streamed.
To expand on an above post, Drake's stats are beyond impressive, though it cannot be denied that he has an advantage over popular acts from the ~'50s-2000s, who did not benefit from the ability to chart all tracks from an album.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on May 12, 2020 9:00:23 GMT -5
I don't think it's fair to necessarily 'discredit' an artist on their achievements, but sometimes the measurement of those achievements (Billboard) is inconsistent and sometimes that is deserving of criticism. An unfortunate side-effect of that criticism is with the marked achievements of the artists. Someone in the streaming era who made a ton of chart placements, be it Drake, Post Malone, or whoever on this side of 2015, are deserving of their achievements, but it's worth pointing out that they do so because of advancements made in Billboard's ability to track more of what people are listening to. And unfortunately, that means not being able to have any record of, or way of capturing, how people consumed music before streaming. So, album bombs are great and all that but we shouldn't pretend artists who have album bombs are doing something nobody else has done before just because the measurement can now capture it, otherwise Michael Jackson would have charted entire albums from Off The Wall up to and including Dangerous, giving him dozens of more Hot 100 placements, the Eagles would have had so many more, Janet, Hall & Oates probaby, among many many many other examples.
|
|
iHype.
4x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2014
Posts: 4,714
|
Post by iHype. on May 12, 2020 9:15:10 GMT -5
Umm... š
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2020 9:16:31 GMT -5
It's the same argument all the time. Speaking truth isn't discrediting. People need to be rational and get out of their feelings. I love Drake and listen to him daily. The facts are while his achievements are outstanding for this era they do not compare to Madonna . If Madonna at her height had digital/streaming and was able to chart countless songs then it's a fair comparison. Records are meant to be broken but if the goal posts are uneven then yes it's an asterisk. This has zero to do with Drake being a rapper or male or black. Drake is the most prolific of HIS time. Madonna had to go from the 0 yard line to the endzone for her accomplishments, Drake started at the 50 yard line..asterisk that bitch. No comparisons
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,891
|
Post by Gary on May 12, 2020 9:18:58 GMT -5
Pretty diverse, did not know that LOL |
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 14,176
|
Post by Enigma. on May 12, 2020 9:20:50 GMT -5
I think the lead artist credit is the most truthful way to look at it. And there Madonna leads Drake 38-25. Sure, there are songs that are hits because of Drake but why aren't they his co-leads then, problem simply solved.
|
|
gabe
3x Platinum Member
gay
Joined: July 2018
Posts: 3,238
|
Post by gabe on May 12, 2020 9:24:11 GMT -5
Queen of the Bubbling Under Kids Jazz Digital Chart! |
|
|
|
Post by thegreatdivine on May 12, 2020 9:25:03 GMT -5
People who don't like Hip-Hop to begin with running to discredit a Hip-Hop artist. What's new? The fact is: Drake is now tied for most top 10 hits in history. Say your congratulations or move on! Acting pitiful and bitter won't erase the record.Ā Well, I like hip-hop and still think it's a lame comparison/parallel. Drake on "What's My Name?" is nothing compared to, say, Madonna's "Frozen." Or maybe you're the person in the group project who writes the introduction, does nothing else, and takes the A along with everyone who did all of the actual work. What about the instances where Drake hops on a song with an artist who has never scored a Hot 100 entry (top 40, top 20, talk less of a top 10 before) and shoots that song to the top 10 (he did that several times in 2018 and years before that), does that still mean he isn't deserving of a credit on that top 10 hit? When it's his fanbase that drove the song into becoming a hit? Also, as a lead artist, he already has 25 top 10 hits. I reckon it won't take long before he has 38 top 10 hits strictly as a lead artist. Is that the only time he can be deserving of his other top 10 hits where he's credited as a featured act? |
|
iHype.
4x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2014
Posts: 4,714
|
Post by iHype. on May 12, 2020 9:32:11 GMT -5
It's the same argument all the time. Speaking truth isn't discrediting. People need to be rational and get out of their feelings. I love Drake and listen to him daily. The facts are while his achievements are outstanding for this era they do not compare to Madonna . If Madonna at her height had digital/streaming and was able to chart countless songs then it's a fair comparison. Records are meant to be broken but if the goal posts are uneven then yes it's an asterisk. This has zero to do with Drake being a rapper or male or black. Drake is the most prolific of HIS time. Madonna had to go from the 0 yard line to the endzone for her accomplishments, Drake started at the 50 yard line..asterisk that bitch. No comparisons Both of them had advantages over each other. Madonna was around when reaching the top 10, statistically was easier than ever. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_Hot_100_top-ten_singles_in_1987en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_Hot_100_top-ten_singles_in_2019Had she (or any other artist from that time) debuted today itād be statistically harder to get all there songs top 10, as a notable less amount of hits reach top 10 today. Whenever you guys discredit you truly arenāt being objective. Also albums still get less top 10 hits in general today. You commonly had dozens of albums getting 5, 6 and or 7 top 10s during that time while in the streaming era by the 3rd hit its insanely hard to reach top 10. |
|
kierz7
2x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2018
Posts: 2,642
|
Post by kierz7 on May 12, 2020 9:32:23 GMT -5
Queen of the Bubbling Under Kids Jazz Digital Chart!Ā ā ļø |
|
strongerq
Platinum Member
Joined: August 2019
Posts: 1,508
|
Post by strongerq on May 12, 2020 9:32:34 GMT -5
I was looking through Nicki's charts: and what the fuck is TASTEMAKERS chart or HEATSEEKERS albums or LYRICFIND U.S. chart. Some of these are niche charts made out of already niche charts.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,628
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 12, 2020 9:34:29 GMT -5
I missed her country banger. Can someone point me to it? |
|
|
|
Post by thegreatdivine on May 12, 2020 9:37:05 GMT -5
Let's take the Beatles for example and how they were able to rack up 20 #1, 29 top 5 & 34 top 10 hits along with 19 #1 albums, all of which sold millions of copies, all in a 7-year period. Was that a function of the era they were in or a function of the fact that they were just that dominant in said era? Why aren't there several other acts from that era who put out just as much music as they did (or close to it) who weren't nearly as successful as they were?
You can apply the same thing to arists who were dominant in the digital era and the artists who are dominant in the streaming era. Because it's *seems* easy for Drake and a few other acts to debut songs in the top 10 doesn't mean it's easy at all. All it means is that those acts have fanbases that engage enough with their content upon release to send those songs to those positions.
Even debuting a single song on the Hot 100 isn't an easy feat for the average artist.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2020 9:39:56 GMT -5
It's the same argument all the time. Speaking truth isn't discrediting. People need to be rational and get out of their feelings. I love Drake and listen to him daily. The facts are while his achievements are outstanding for this era they do not compare to Madonna . If Madonna at her height had digital/streaming and was able to chart countless songs then it's a fair comparison. Records are meant to be broken but if the goal posts are uneven then yes it's an asterisk. This has zero to do with Drake being a rapper or male or black. Drake is the most prolific of HIS time. Madonna had to go from the 0 yard line to the endzone for her accomplishments, Drake started at the 50 yard line..asterisk that bitch. No comparisons Both of them had advantages over each other. Madonna was around when reaching the top 10, statistically was easier than ever. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_Hot_100_top-ten_singles_in_1987en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_Hot_100_top-ten_singles_in_2019Had she (or any other artist from that time) debuted today itād be statistically harder to get all there songs top 10, as a notable less amount of hits reach top 10 today. Whenever you guys discredit you truly arenāt being objective. Also albums still get less top 10 hits in general today. You commonly had dozens of albums getting 5, 6 and or 7 top 10s during that time while in the streaming era by the 3rd hit its insanely hard to reach top 10. We can go back and forth and back and forth and show differences that slant things our way but its fruitless. Because you have a point and its valid and the other side has a point and its valid. There was a period in music when actual album sales was the point and labels actually shut down big records before they charted high to get album sales. Now its single success over albums. Its apples and oranges and I'm not saying we should discredit Drake but we should not compare eras. Which I wouldn't have to if billboard didnt. Just put a modern day asterisk besides it and we all good. |
|
iHype.
4x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2014
Posts: 4,714
|
Post by iHype. on May 12, 2020 9:43:02 GMT -5
Both of them had advantages over each other. Madonna was around when reaching the top 10, statistically was easier than ever. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_Hot_100_top-ten_singles_in_1987en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_Hot_100_top-ten_singles_in_2019Had she (or any other artist from that time) debuted today itād be statistically harder to get all there songs top 10, as a notable less amount of hits reach top 10 today. Whenever you guys discredit you truly arenāt being objective. Also albums still get less top 10 hits in general today. You commonly had dozens of albums getting 5, 6 and or 7 top 10s during that time while in the streaming era by the 3rd hit its insanely hard to reach top 10. We can go back and forth and back and forth and show differences that slant things our way but its fruitless. There was a period in music when actual album sales was the point and labels actually shut down big records before they charted high to get album sales. Now its single success over albums. Its apples and oranges and I'm not saying we should discredit Drake but we should not compare eras. Which I wouldn't have to if billboard didnt. Just put a modern day asterisk besides it and we all good. You: āMadonna started at the 0 yard line. Drake started at the 50 yard lineā Also you: āIām not saying we should discredit Drakeā LOL. You already did discredit him, and the fact of the matter is, being actually objective, they both had multiple advantages over each other from their time. And they both got 38 top 10s. Drake deserves his congrats as much. You wrote a whole post on why him achieving doesnāt mean as much then when itās pointed out her advantages itās āwell letās not just compare itās fruitlessā. Yāall crack me up. |
|
|
|
Post by thegreatdivine on May 12, 2020 9:43:53 GMT -5
I think the lead artist credit is the most truthful way to look at it. And there Madonna leads Drake 38-25. Sure, there are songs that are hits because of Drake but why aren't they his co-leads then, problem simply solved. They aren't his co-leads because the artists chose to credit him as a featured artist instead. Drake is a large reason why Sicko Mode was as big of a deal upon arrival as it was, yet he isn't credited on the song, either as a featured act or as a co-lead, despite rapping for a longer timeframe on the song than Travis Scott himself. That decision was made by Travis Scott. Drake could have easily chosen to not credit Chris Brown as a featured act on Not You Too off his latest mixtape, seeing as all he did was provide background vocals, yet he did and that gave Chris his 100th entry on the Hot 100. You admitting that there are songs that are hits because of Drake while still trying to use the simple fact that he wasn't credited as a co-lead on those songs as a way to say he isn't deserving of credit on those songs takes away from whatever point you were trying to make in the first place. |
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,930
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on May 12, 2020 9:44:38 GMT -5
people are forgetting that the post that started this discussion said "Drake will be forgotten." if we all agree that that's bs, can we all move on? I don't think anyone's saying Drake is better than Madonna or vice versa.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2020 9:48:08 GMT -5
We can go back and forth and back and forth and show differences that slant things our way but its fruitless. There was a period in music when actual album sales was the point and labels actually shut down big records before they charted high to get album sales. Now its single success over albums. Its apples and oranges and I'm not saying we should discredit Drake but we should not compare eras. Which I wouldn't have to if billboard didnt. Just put a modern day asterisk besides it and we all good. You: āMadonna started at the 0 yard line. Drake started at the 50 yard lineā Also you: āIām not saying we should discredit Drakeā LOL. You already did discredit him, and the fact of the matter is, being actually objective, they both had multiple advantages over each other from their time. And they both got 38 top 10s. Drake deserves his congrats as much. You wrote a whole post on why him achieving doesnāt mean as much then when itās pointed out her advantages itās āwell letās not just compare itās fruitlessā. Yāall crack me up. Your last post was well stated and I gave you that energy back, but now you're just being condescending, childish and annoying so good day lady. This is why its fruitless you're unable or unwilling to remove emotions out of it. Drake makes money of his emotions you dont. Settle down. |
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 14,176
|
Post by Enigma. on May 12, 2020 9:51:03 GMT -5
I think the lead artist credit is the most truthful way to look at it. And there Madonna leads Drake 38-25. Sure, there are songs that are hits because of Drake but why aren't they his co-leads then, problem simply solved. Drake could have easily chosen to not credit Chris Brown as a featured act on Not You Too off his latest mixtape, seeing as all he did was provide background vocals, yet he did and that gave Chris his 100th entry on the Hot 100. Charity king! Anyway, even Billboard pointed out the lead credit difference in their text yesterday. It is a technicality, but there is some background for discussion. |
|
kierz7
2x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2018
Posts: 2,642
|
Post by kierz7 on May 12, 2020 9:52:05 GMT -5
Weāve hit 52 pages, almost a half of which weāve been discussing the artists of today and how āeasyā or ādifficultā it is to score a number one and Lord knows weāll be having the same conversation in a few weeks once again. š
Honestly, people need to learn to put their feelings of their favourite artists to one side and not constantly engage in an argument.
Itās quite obvious that the older āPulseā users and chart watchers here, who have been around since the early 2000ās and prior (the ā80ās, ā90ās), are going to have particular opinions on how the charts are operated today as they have actually witnessed the difference.
For those who are young and have only been foreseeing the charts since the Digital and/or Streaming eras, you need to learn to accept that there will always be a discrepancy in the opinions of artists today who are seemingly achieving chart records on a basis that appears much āeasierā than it was before.
Iāve been on āPulseā since 2003, and still remember when āPulseā was a āRadio & Records Chartā forum in the very early 2000ās, and have lived through the time periods where:
ā¢ Rihanna was constantly scolded for her breaking of numerous chart records, especially between 2008-2012 when she released a new single seemingly every other month. There were many Pulse users who couldnāt/didnāt understand it especially when she was achieving persistent top tens and is STILL only a handful of number ones away from tying/surpassing Mariah Carey/The Beatles. Itās only because Rihanna has reached a level of Global, cultural stardom and omnipresence and people miss her why these conversations have been put to the wayside. I guarantee theyāll surface again.
ā¢ BeyoncĆ© was constantly scolded for being āoverratedā when she too scoring back to back hits between 2003-2008. Her success at the time was literally a result of her āFather purchasing her career accomplishmentsā according to many. There were certain users on here that I remember who couldnāt bare her.
ā¢ Usher was constantly scolded for his scoring of a barrage of hits in 2004-2005.
ā¢ Nelly/50 Cent were also scolded for their hitmaking status circa. 2002-2005.
Drake is NO DIFFERENT to the aforementioned and never will be. Heās also privy to skepticism, irrespective of his status and what records he breaks.
Thatās just the way it is and has been on these forums and will continue to be.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,891
|
Post by Gary on May 12, 2020 9:56:17 GMT -5
Bottom line - different eras are not directly comparable because the market conditions between the eras are in many cases drastically different.
Drake would not have 222 hits in Madonna's era - pre digital/streaming - as singles were released one at a time, not all at once
Who knows how many top 10s Madonna would have had in the streaming era - but we will never know
|
|
