strongerq
Platinum Member
Joined: August 2019
Posts: 1,507
|
Post by strongerq on Aug 6, 2020 10:47:13 GMT -5
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. The bitching is aimed at people 3-4 months who were complaining about radio (me included) or the people who complain about sales recently. I used thick skulls because some people here can't comperhand some things like: how easier it is to inflate chart positions with sales vs with streaming or how leaving a song on loop doesn't count every listen. And yeah, my position is neutral. But people keep saying water is green, and it annoys me.
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. We are talking about a tracking week (7 days). That example is not only outdated, but irrelevant. Why?
Did you see how many streams equal to 80k sales. Or are you just wasting my time ?
Reminder: 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.
5,500,000 / 7 = 785,714 (paid only) = 3,142 points = 15,714 sales Oh and the numbers are global but who gives a fuск right. So this is the same as 4K people buying 4 copies each. And you can't achieve these streams with 4K people. Oh and the streams are from 10 songs should i divide it by 10 ? 
What is the investment ? PEOPLE Noone said streaming can't be manipulated. But saying streaming is easier to manipulate than sales is FALSE. That was the whole point.
Have a nice day, i don't feel like discussing this any further.
|
|
|
|
Post by Naos on Aug 6, 2020 11:31:16 GMT -5
And yeah, my position is neutral. But people keep saying water is green, and it annoys me. Nothing about what you've said is indicative of a neutral position. Neutrality implies taking no position, and taking no side in an argument or conflict. That example is not only outdated, but irrelevant. Why? It is not irrelevant, as the topic is related to streaming manipulation. And they've done nothing to fix the issue, just simply removed the album. This same thing can be done with actual music albums, and it would be way easier to do with a band that actually has mainstream relevance. Noone said streaming can't be manipulated. But saying streaming is easier to manipulate than sales is FALSE. That was the whole point. It's manipulated easily due to playlists, and it's almost just as difficult as radio to get a showing on any sort of playlist without some sort of major label. And how do you think labels get their non-established artists on playlists again? Right. There's also the whole passive streaming thing. At least sales are indicative of fan support, and have an actual cost. Fans have to put their money in for sales. Not for free streaming, or it's a much smaller cost in general (in the case of paid streaming). |
|
strongerq
Platinum Member
Joined: August 2019
Posts: 1,507
|
Post by strongerq on Aug 6, 2020 12:19:15 GMT -5
Nothing about what you've said is indicative of a neutral position. Neutrality implies taking no position, and taking no side in an argument or conflict. Ok, i am neither a fan nor hater of '7 Rings'. You are saying '7 Rings' floped hard. So i step in and say it was a hit. Now i am colored as a '7 Rings' fan ? Doesn't seem right but whatever, not the topic. It is not irrelevant, as the topic is related to streaming manipulation. And they've done nothing to fix the issue, just simply removed the album. This same thing can be done with actual music albums, and it would be way easier to do with a band that actually has mainstream relevance. It is irrelevant because each song got 314 points every week. The songs are 30 sec so a normal song will be streamed 5 times slower (2.5min). So you will get 5 times less streams.
The whole point is 20K people can make a #60 song a top 5 hit (chart week 08/15) or a song that isn't top 10 into a #1 (guess who). In order to do the same thing with streaming you need more than Million people. That was the whole point. A small group of people can't manipulate the charts with streaming as much they can with sales. It's manipulated easily due to playlists, and it's almost just as difficult as radio to get a showing on any sort of playlist without some sort of major label. And how do you think labels get their non-established artists on playlists again? Right. There's also the whole passive streaming thing. At least sales are indicative of fan support, and have an actual cost. Fans have to put their money in for sales. Not for free streaming, or it's a much smaller cost in general (in the case of paid streaming). The song that is #1 on Rap Caviar (the playlist that pop fans seem to complain the most about) and a lot of other Hip-Hop playlists had 356,869 stream yesterday. Lets say all of the streams are from the playlist. 2.5M in a week. Did you read the thing that i posted twice where 20K people can get 16,000 points with sales. Well that is 20M streams. Playlisting got this song 2.5M. You will say same thing happens on Apple Music, so *2=5M. That is 25% of the points. Playlisting vs mass buying.
The whole point that you don't seem to be getting is: It is easier to inflate chart positions with mass buying than it is with botting/playlisting. Noone denies that playlists give more streams, major labels put artist on big Billboards across cities and that generates streams aswell.
|
|
