|
|
Post by After Minutes on Aug 5, 2020 10:39:04 GMT -5
I'm a straight man but not for Abel
|
|
Choco
Diamond Member
james dean daydream
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 27,977 
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by Choco on Aug 5, 2020 10:53:18 GMT -5
I'm gay but I love the latest Harry Styles album and I love The Weeknd... am I straight? Omg.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Aug 5, 2020 10:54:09 GMT -5
Most pop music by straight men is obviously just plain boring, simple as that. I think even straight men themselves can agree to some extent. What does this even mean? What does sexuality have to do with the quality of one's music? Smh. Itβs okay! I donβt think anyone was coming for Drake with that comment. :kii: |
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Aug 5, 2020 12:09:51 GMT -5
I'm straight and I have an impeccable taste in music, so you are all wrong.
|
|
tuna
Platinum Member
weezed to meet you
Joined: July 2019
Posts: 1,510
|
Post by tuna on Aug 5, 2020 12:13:00 GMT -5
my opinion: we need to remove sales entirely from the hot 100 tracking
|
|
|
|
Post by Naos on Aug 5, 2020 12:42:03 GMT -5
my opinion: we need to remove sales entirely from the hot 100 tracking That's ridiculous. It's still a form of music consumption. It would severely weaken country, rock would not exist on the Hot 100 (what little charts), and it would even hinder pop artists. It would really only make hip-hop's influence larger. |
|
|
|
Post by violentdreams on Aug 5, 2020 15:19:23 GMT -5
my opinion: we need to remove sales entirely from the hot 100 tracking That's ridiculous. It's still a form of music consumption. It would severely weaken country, rock would not exist on the Hot 100 (what little charts), and it would even hinder pop artists. It would really only make hip-hop's influence larger. If those genres need an archaic and severely dwindling form of music consumption to continue charting, then obviously they're just not that popular. There's no reason why 20,000 people buying a song should register an impact on a chart where the #1 streamed song regularly has 30 million+ streams. And the only time you'll see a song sell relatively "well" is when stans are mass buying it to give it a peak in the top 10 before it immediately craters. I agree with Leah, sales are dead, just get rid of them and be done with it. If it helps hip-hop, then that just makes the charts more accurately represent the #1 genre in America. |
|
higilo
Charting
BENEE
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 333
|
Post by higilo on Aug 5, 2020 16:27:29 GMT -5
That's ridiculous. It's still a form of music consumption. It would severely weaken country, rock would not exist on the Hot 100 (what little charts), and it would even hinder pop artists. It would really only make hip-hop's influence larger. If those genres need an archaic and severely dwindling form of music consumption to continue charting, then obviously they're just not that popular. There's no reason why 20,000 people buying a song should register an impact on a chart where the #1 streamed song regularly has 30 million+ streams. And the only time you'll see a song sell relatively "well" is when stans are mass buying it to give it a peak in the top 10 before it immediately craters. I agree with Leah, sales are dead, just get rid of them and be done with it. If it helps hip-hop, then that just makes the charts more accurately represent the #1 genre in America. If you had said you wanted to lower sales' impact then it would have been fine. But getting rid of sales altogether at this stage is ridiculous. |
|
Au$tin
Diamond Member
Pop Culture Guru
Grrrrrrrrrr. Fuckity fuck why don't you watch my film before you judge it? FURY.
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 54,623
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his/him
|
Post by Au$tin on Aug 5, 2020 16:30:08 GMT -5
That's ridiculous. It's still a form of music consumption. It would severely weaken country, rock would not exist on the Hot 100 (what little charts), and it would even hinder pop artists. It would really only make hip-hop's influence larger. If those genres need an archaic and severely dwindling form of music consumption to continue charting, then obviously they're just not that popular. There's no reason why 20,000 people buying a song should register an impact on a chart where the #1 streamed song regularly has 30 million+ streams. And the only time you'll see a song sell relatively "well" is when stans are mass buying it to give it a peak in the top 10 before it immediately craters. I agree with Leah, sales are dead, just get rid of them and be done with it. If it helps hip-hop, then that just makes the charts more accurately represent the #1 genre in America. Buddy I think you're forgetting that being #1 on digital sales doesn't even guarantee you charting on the Hot 100. |
|
|
|
Post by After Minutes on Aug 5, 2020 16:49:15 GMT -5
my opinion: we need to remove sales entirely from the hot 100 tracking That's ridiculous. It's still a form of music consumption. It would severely weaken country, rock would not exist on the Hot 100 (what little charts), and it would even hinder pop artists. It would really only make hip-hop's influence larger. I don't see anything wrong with it then if we are going to bring the hot 100 closer to the truth |
|
|
|
Post by violentdreams on Aug 5, 2020 17:09:22 GMT -5
If those genres need an archaic and severely dwindling form of music consumption to continue charting, then obviously they're just not that popular. There's no reason why 20,000 people buying a song should register an impact on a chart where the #1 streamed song regularly has 30 million+ streams. And the only time you'll see a song sell relatively "well" is when stans are mass buying it to give it a peak in the top 10 before it immediately craters. I agree with Leah, sales are dead, just get rid of them and be done with it. If it helps hip-hop, then that just makes the charts more accurately represent the #1 genre in America. Buddy I think you're forgetting that being #1 on digital sales doesn't even guarantee you charting on the Hot 100. Sounds like you agree, digital sales are a prehistoric and outdated metric of popularity. Many songs that sell "a lot" (15k-20k copies) aren't actually popular at all. All the more reason to ditch them then, huh? |
|
Au$tin
Diamond Member
Pop Culture Guru
Grrrrrrrrrr. Fuckity fuck why don't you watch my film before you judge it? FURY.
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 54,623
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his/him
|
Post by Au$tin on Aug 5, 2020 17:44:13 GMT -5
Buddy I think you're forgetting that being #1 on digital sales doesn't even guarantee you charting on the Hot 100. Sounds like you agree, digital sales are a prehistoric and outdated metric of popularity. Many songs that sell "a lot" (15k-20k copies) aren't actually popular at all. All the more reason to ditch them then, huh? Nope, I don't. Just because it doesn't contribute much doesn't mean it shouldn't contribute at all. Sales have decided differences in positions, even as far back as the days of physical singles selling 2k a week. Sales are still important. Millions of people still purchase music. They shouldn't be discredited because they're the smallest component. Their consumption still has value. |
|
85la
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 3,916
|
Post by 85la on Aug 5, 2020 18:58:14 GMT -5
This discussion kind of leads into a question that I have had for awhile, and I don't want to offend anyone, but what do most of you identify as (men, women, non-binary, etc.)? I am a straight man but I have always been more interested in female artists, which I have come to learn is definitely not common, but I've always been curious as to how many of you view musicians of the same or different sex as you and how the trends usually go. Again, I've just been curious, but I don't want anyone to feel uncomfortable by my asking, so if it comes across as offensive, please know it is not my intent  Speaking from a cisgender/binary frame of reference, in general, it seems that men typically listen to music mostly by male artists and women by women artists, however, it also seems that many more women listen to male artists than the reverse because of the gender stigma/stereotype that it isn't "manly" for men to admire art by women, and that in general men might feel more pressure to confine to gender norms in this regard. There are exceptions of course, such as gay men or men such as yourself who are confident enough in their masculinity who feel they don't have to adhere to superficial gender constraints. |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,890
|
Post by Gary on Aug 5, 2020 19:05:47 GMT -5
This magazine produces dozens of charts - for the streaming fans who want to see a streaming only chart - that chart exists already
Something for everyone
|
|
|
|
Post by Naos on Aug 5, 2020 19:18:56 GMT -5
That's ridiculous. It's still a form of music consumption. It would severely weaken country, rock would not exist on the Hot 100 (what little charts), and it would even hinder pop artists. It would really only make hip-hop's influence larger. If those genres need an archaic and severely dwindling form of music consumption to continue charting, then obviously they're just not that popular. There's no reason why 20,000 people buying a song should register an impact on a chart where the #1 streamed song regularly has 30 million+ streams. And the only time you'll see a song sell relatively "well" is when stans are mass buying it to give it a peak in the top 10 before it immediately craters. I agree with Leah, sales are dead, just get rid of them and be done with it. If it helps hip-hop, then that just makes the charts more accurately represent the #1 genre in America. Then go ahead and just look at the streaming charts if that's what you want. Just because sales are "dead" doesn't mean you just stop counting them. |
|
pancakes
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2012
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by pancakes on Aug 5, 2020 20:30:27 GMT -5
Ah yes the normative discussion of what the Billboard Top 100 should look like.
|
|
thelegends
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Joe Biden : βYou ainβt blackβ
Joined: September 2017
Posts: 2,588
|
Post by thelegends on Aug 5, 2020 21:09:50 GMT -5
If those genres need an archaic and severely dwindling form of music consumption to continue charting, then obviously they're just not that popular. There's no reason why 20,000 people buying a song should register an impact on a chart where the #1 streamed song regularly has 30 million+ streams. And the only time you'll see a song sell relatively "well" is when stans are mass buying it to give it a peak in the top 10 before it immediately craters. I agree with Leah, sales are dead, just get rid of them and be done with it. If it helps hip-hop, then that just makes the charts more accurately represent the #1 genre in America. Then go ahead and just look at the streaming charts if that's what you want. Just because sales are "dead" doesn't mean you just stop counting them. Radio : Am I A Joke To You? |
|
tuna
Platinum Member
weezed to meet you
Joined: July 2019
Posts: 1,510
|
Post by tuna on Aug 5, 2020 21:50:54 GMT -5
my opinion: we need to remove sales entirely from the hot 100 tracking That's ridiculous. It's still a form of music consumption. It would severely weaken country, rock would not exist on the Hot 100 (what little charts), and it would even hinder pop artists. It would really only make hip-hop's influence larger. like it or not, 150M people listening to a song on the radio is still them knowing what the song is, and being aware of it. 100k sales means nothing; it could just be 25k superfans buying a song, with absolutely nobody else listening to it. Sales are less accurate than the other metrics and easier to rig |
|
|
|
Post by Naos on Aug 5, 2020 22:13:26 GMT -5
That's ridiculous. It's still a form of music consumption. It would severely weaken country, rock would not exist on the Hot 100 (what little charts), and it would even hinder pop artists. It would really only make hip-hop's influence larger. like it or not, 150M people listening to a song on the radio is still them knowing what the song is, and being aware of it. 100k sales means nothing; it could just be 25k superfans buying a song, with absolutely nobody else listening to it. Sales are less accurate than the other metrics and easier to rig I'd say streaming is far easier to rig. People can contribute to multiple streams way easier, can stream in their sleep (a tactic Vulfpeck employed), set up streaming parties on multiple platforms and no credit card is required. No actual investiment has to be done with streaming, as some services are free. Streaming playlists can likely be bought, similar with radio. And the audience numbers on radio aren't exactly accurate, and it's passive (like a lot of streaming). |
|
|
|
Post by thegreatdivine on Aug 6, 2020 2:25:05 GMT -5
What does this even mean? What does sexuality have to do with the quality of one's music? Smh. Itβs okay! I donβt think anyone was coming for Drake with that comment. :kii: I know you're joking, but stop 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 Aug 6, 2020 2:26:45 GMT -5
Itβs okay! I donβt think anyone was coming for Drake with that comment. :kii: I know you're joking, but stop it. Wow so defensive sis... |
|
|
|
Post by thegreatdivine on Aug 6, 2020 2:34:06 GMT -5
I know you're joking, but stop it. Wow so defensive sis... Don't start, please. |
|
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 Aug 6, 2020 2:41:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreatdivine on Aug 6, 2020 2:49:22 GMT -5
I didn't start anything with you. Keep it moving. |
|
strongerq
Platinum Member
Joined: August 2019
Posts: 1,507
|
Post by strongerq on Aug 6, 2020 5:13:16 GMT -5
I'd say streaming is far easier to rig. People can contribute to multiple streams way easier, can stream in their sleep (a tactic Vulfpeck employed), set up streaming parties on multiple platforms and no credit card is required. No actual investiment has to be done with streaming, as some services are free. Streaming playlists can likely be bought, similar with radio. And the audience numbers on radio aren't exactly accurate, and it's passive (like a lot of streaming). I am not for removing sales nor radio or whatever the discussion is, but regarding this "streaming is easier to rig".
Why doesn't someone name an example of this ? I can name 5/6 songs that got higher placement(#1) due to fans buying multiple copies. Can you do the same ?
1 sale = 375 free streams 1 sale = 250 paid streams
Streaming platforms have algorithms that protect from fake streams/botting. Example: On Spotify Global chart 'Rain On Me' had 6.7M streams, on the Desktop app the counter was showing 10.2M that is a 34% difference. Why was that ? -"The figures on spotifycharts.com are generated using a formula to protect against any artificial inflation of chart postions".
What is the investment you asked ? - People. Why? 20,000 people can buy 4 copies each That is 16,000 chart points. Or that is equal to 20,000,000 paid streams or 30,000,000 free streams.
People need to get it through their thick skulls that streaming a song on loop for 12 hours won't count for 180 streams (4 min song). It will probably count as 0. Only on YouTube the algorithm is weak and allows for this to an extent. But even Billboard is discounting YouTube streams in the chart (so they might be aware).
Lets say the algorithm allows you to stream the song in a day: FREE STREAMS
50 times - you need 600,000 people streaming to get those 16,000 points 25 times - you need 1,200,000 people streaming to . . . 10 times - you need 3,000,000 . . .
THE INVESTMENT IS ... PEOPLE
(This is not aimed at you directly Naos ) People need to stop talking out of their asΡes, and think for a second what they are saying. People bitΡhing about sales have right to because of obvious manipulations, people who bitΡhed about radio had right to during the start of the pandemic when radio was inflated, people bitΡhing about streams almost never bring arguments as to why is streaming easy to exploit (and when they do it is the basme bullΡhit that doesn't make sense -read above again if it's still unclear) and saying streaming is the easiest to manipulate is ... plain stupid. This is coming from a neutral perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Aug 6, 2020 9:32:44 GMT -5
Itβs okay! I donβt think anyone was coming for Drake with that comment. :kii: I know you're joking, but stop it. Sis you know I love you  |
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Aug 6, 2020 9:35:07 GMT -5
That's ridiculous. It's still a form of music consumption. It would severely weaken country, rock would not exist on the Hot 100 (what little charts), and it would even hinder pop artists. It would really only make hip-hop's influence larger. If those genres need an archaic and severely dwindling form of music consumption to continue charting, then obviously they're just not that popular. There's no reason why 20,000 people buying a song should register an impact on a chart where the #1 streamed song regularly has 30 million+ streams. And the only time you'll see a song sell relatively "well" is when stans are mass buying it to give it a peak in the top 10 before it immediately craters. I agree with Leah, sales are dead, just get rid of them and be done with it. If it helps hip-hop, then that just makes the charts more accurately represent the #1 genre in America. I disagree with it too and it's less about genre representation and more about population representation. In no way should a chart meant to represent the most popular music among as much of the population as possible cut out a method of how some of that population consumes music just because that method is less used than it used to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Aug 6, 2020 9:37:42 GMT -5
That's ridiculous. It's still a form of music consumption. It would severely weaken country, rock would not exist on the Hot 100 (what little charts), and it would even hinder pop artists. It would really only make hip-hop's influence larger. like it or not, 150M people listening to a song on the radio is still them knowing what the song is, and being aware of it. 100k sales means nothing; it could just be 25k superfans buying a song, with absolutely nobody else listening to it. Sales are less accurate than the other metrics and easier to rigThis is new! I also love how sales are easy to rig by superfans but somehow streaming isn't. lol |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,890
|
Post by Gary on Aug 6, 2020 10:18:57 GMT -5
OK so feeding on all the chart manipulation talk
regarding - putting a song on youtube or spotify on continuous play for 24 hours
or paying money to download the same song multiple times (as opposed to downloading once and making copies)
all in the name of better chart placement etc.
Has anyone ever done that? If so, did it work?
|
|
|
|
Post by Naos on Aug 6, 2020 10:19:44 GMT -5
Why doesn't someone name an example of this ?
What is the investment you asked ? - People. Why? 20,000 people can buy 4 copies each That is 16,000 chart points. Or that is equal to 20,000,000 paid streams or 30,000,000 free streams.
People need to get it through their thick skulls People need to stop talking out of their asΡes, and think for a second what they are saying. People bitΡhing about sales have right to because of obvious manipulations, people who bitΡhed about radio had right to during the start of the pandemic when radio was inflated, people bitΡhing about streams almost never bring arguments as to why is streaming easy to exploit (and when they do it is the basme bullΡhit that doesn't make sense -read above again if it's still unclear) and saying streaming is the easiest to manipulate is ... plain stupid. This is coming from a neutral perspective.
First off, the language here does not indicate at all a neutral perspective. Terms like "thick skulls", "talking out of their asses", and "bitching" is in fact, indicative of a heavily biased perspective, in this case, in favor of streaming. Second, I already did give an example with Vulfpeck. They managed to make $20,000 USD just because people streamed in their sleep. And no one is listening to an album of tracks with 30 seconds or so of silence for the enjoyment of it. That was blatant manipulation. Third, playlist curators. There was the whole situation with Drake, where his image appeared on literally every Spotify playlist, even ones that didn't include his music, a pretty obvious promotion tactic. But there's other indications it has occurred: "Playlist promotion βis a very, very big deal,β says Daniel Glass, whose Glassnote Records (Mumford & Sons) began actively soliciting songs to streaming Βcompanies about two years ago. βItβs part of our company culture and our lingo in the hallways.β The practice truly went aboveground on Aug. 5, when Universal Music Group named industry veteran Jay Frank senior vp global streaming marketing (reporting to Michele Anthony, executive vp recorded music, and Andrew Kronfeld, president of global marketing) and invested in his digital marketing firm DigMark (for an undisclosed amount), an innovator in playlist promotion that charges label clients $2,000 for a six-week campaign. Frank, who has a reputation among his peers as a βdata guru,β as one business associate described Frank, seems a logical hire for a Βcorporation such as UMG. Yet sources tell Billboard that Frankβs company is among those that have adopted some of radio promotionβs Βunsavory Βpractices, such as paying for placement on playlists, if not buying and thus controlling them outright. Multiple insiders allege that the major music groups -- as well as DigMark and a playlist promoter -- have paid influential curators to populate their playlists with their clientsβ music. Some third-party users are known to request money to include songs on their playlists. www.billboard.com/articles/business/6670475/playola-promotion-streaming-servicesYou could also see this push for artists that haven't really ever had a hit, yet due to backing of a major label, like with radio, they're thrown onto a ton of playlists. |
|
