strongerq
Platinum Member
Joined: August 2019
Posts: 1,489
|
Post by strongerq on Jan 7, 2021 14:47:40 GMT -5
It is most certainly not harder nowadays for an album to get an RIAA cert. gold is ridiculously low and easy. lus I'd like to know why you keep adding criteria like 4m or 8m or diamond. I am specifically talking about simply getting awarded a certification. Not x number of cert#. Jesus dude. You are saying it is easier to sell albums now than it was decades ago. I provide you with numbers of what albums were selling back then and what numbers are from nowadyas.
Now you ask why i provide numbers ?
To prove albums are selling less now. DUUUUUUH
"gold is ridiculously low and easy."
In 2019 tracking year only 30 albums released in the same year managed to reach 500k SPS.
In the late 90s - early 00s the 50th album was selling 1-1.5 M depending on the year.
Now have a good day.
Edit: and i am using years after Nielsen was established because there isn't much public data regarding sales before then.
|
|
|
Post by Baby Yoda Hot100Fan on Jan 7, 2021 15:14:24 GMT -5
^What is really easy is for songs to get certified. Which is why so many of those in the last decade are now diamond or better.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,761
|
Post by jenglisbe on Jan 7, 2021 15:22:13 GMT -5
I meant certifications in general, I never mentioned singles or albums, nor diamond. Well that is why i wrote it like that. Album certifications are harder to get now compared to 90s/80s. Singles certifications didn't even exist then in this form. So ofcourse there are 10k songs getting certified now compared to almost none in the 80s. That is why i said don't compare Single certifications to Album certifications. The award is called Digital Single Award.
Once digital sales rose, the RIAA recalibrated the cert levels and even took back some certs (all songs that had been certified remained Gold, but some were scaled back). I wish they would do this in the steaming age. The streams equivalent is too low.
|
|
iHype.
4x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2014
Posts: 4,611
|
Post by iHype. on Jan 7, 2021 15:30:40 GMT -5
Well that is why i wrote it like that.
Album certifications are harder to get now compared to 90s/80s.
Singles certifications didn't even exist then in this form. So ofcourse there are 10k songs getting certified now compared to almost none in the 80s.
That is why i said don't compare Single certifications to Album certifications.
The award is called Digital Single Award.
It is most certainly not harder nowadays for an album to get an RIAA cert. gold is ridiculously low and easy. you keep seeming to need to attach numbers like 4m or 8m or diamond. I'm not talking about multiple cents, but the simple fact of getting certified. as well music and the world existed before the 1990s. In fact about half of chart history for the hot 100. Yes I realize RIAA didn't start in 1958. In 2000, 100 albums sold atleast 1 million (Platinum). In 2020, 25~ albums passed 1 million units (Platinum) and 90~ albums passed 500k (Gold). Not really easier objectively.
|
|
iHype.
4x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2014
Posts: 4,611
|
Post by iHype. on Jan 7, 2021 15:36:39 GMT -5
For songs, it is obviously much easier in general to get certifications today. However, I don't think they should necessarily change certification criteria just because of that. 150~ streams is still equivalent to around the revenue of 1 song purchase, and such. Most importantly, certifications have always been reflective of the current enviroment.
In today's digital world, consuming an individual song is more easier and popular than ever. Thus the reflective certifications show that.
Just as in 1997, consuming a hit album was much bigger and thus the higher certifications from that period reflect that. If they didn't suddenly change certification levels for albums when some were going 17x Platinum because of a huge-album consumption environment made it 'too easy', then why suddenly do that for songs?
They also didn't even lower certifications for songs in the early 2000s when they were struggling to even do 100k. It just would seem very arbitrary to suddenly change certifications in 2021, when the market has shifted many times before and they were never altered.
I don't think there will ever be a good way to compare success of raw numbers when the market has always changed. Billboard's all-time charts which simply look at charting and adjust for time periods to show change in the markets is the best way, but even then it still of course has its flaws. The main flaw being so many albums/songs are very huge after they stop charting, or are even huger then what was shown when they were charting at the time.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2021 16:08:09 GMT -5
For songs, it is obviously much easier in general to get certifications today. However, I don't think they should necessarily change certification criteria just because of that. 150~ streams is still equivalent to around the revenue of 1 song purchase, and such. Most importantly, certifications have always been reflective of the current enviroment. In today's digital world, consuming an individual song is more easier and popular than ever. Thus the reflective certifications show that. Just as in 1997, consuming a hit album was much bigger and thus the higher certifications from that period reflect that. If they didn't suddenly change certification levels for albums when some were going 17x Platinum because of a huge-album consumption environment made it 'too easy', then why suddenly do that for songs? They also didn't even lower certifications for songs in the early 2000s when they were struggling to even do 100k. It just would seem very arbitrary to suddenly change certifications in 2021, when the market has shifted many times before and they were never altered. I don't think there will ever be a good way to compare success of raw numbers when the market has always changed. Billboard's all-time charts which simply look at charting and adjust for time periods to show change in the markets is the best way, but even then it still of course has its flaws. The main flaw being so many albums/songs are very huge after they stop charting, or are even huger then what was shown when they were charting at the time. I was not really advocating for change. It was to clear up and correct perceptions on the actually getting a cert today, compared to the past. like many things in life, you just can't compare today to the past, what I would like to see is a bit more recognition of that distinction, and perhaps a tempering of how today is so much greater because you can see all the carts compared to the past. i think that same point can be compared/translated to the hot 100 and it's records and achievements. That claiming superiority of today's songs and artists because of all the records and achievements in misleading. You just can't make any fair and reasonable comparisons in most cases. Today's stars are the stars of today, and the past stars were the stars of a past time.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,761
|
Post by jenglisbe on Jan 7, 2021 16:10:27 GMT -5
In today's digital world, consuming an individual song is more easier and popular than ever. Thus the reflective certifications show that. How do we know it's more popular? We were letting our tapes rock til our tapes popped in the 80s and 90s, it's just no one was measuring that consumption. This isn't true. Originally the criteria for a Gold single was 1 million sold and for a Gold album was $1 million in sales. That changed for albums in the 70s and for singles in the 80s. And as I wrote before, the levels were also changed for digital sales. From 2004-2006 Gold was 100k downloads sold and 200k was Platinum. They then changed it to match the 500kl/1 million levels in 2006.
|
|
iHype.
4x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2014
Posts: 4,611
|
Post by iHype. on Jan 7, 2021 16:19:41 GMT -5
In today's digital world, consuming an individual song is more easier and popular than ever. Thus the reflective certifications show that. How do we know it's more popular? We were letting our tapes rock til our tapes popped in the 80s and 90s, it's just no one was measuring that consumption. The consumption was counted when you purchased it. Streams earn individual revenue for every single listen, which is why its on a per-listen/stream basis. You putting something into a cassette player after buying it, does not earn additional revenue for any parties. You buying the cassette was the main revenue. And due to the internet individual songs are definitely almost undoubtedly bigger than ever in consumption. You can listen to something unlimited times practically anywhere, songs can be bought unlimited times (not a limited stock i.e. physical singles), and can be easily obtained after years and decades. I don't think you'd be able to listen to music while on a 2 hour jog in 1968, nor be able to find/buy a song that peaked at #82 five years prior. The digital era has definitely made songs more consumed and available than ever, nonetheless to a wider population than decades ago.
|
|
GP
4x Platinum Member
TOOOO BE LOOOVED
Joined: December 2017
Posts: 4,969
|
Post by GP on Jan 7, 2021 16:33:48 GMT -5
Do you guys think Zayn will make any sort of an impact on the charts. I would certainly like that. Hope the song is good
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2021 16:37:22 GMT -5
In today's digital world, consuming an individual song is more easier and popular than ever. Thus the reflective certifications show that. How do we know it's more popular? We were letting our tapes rock til our tapes popped in the 80s and 90s, it's just no one was measuring that consumption. This isn't true. Originally the criteria for a Gold single was 1 million sold and for a Gold album was $1 million in sales. That changed for albums in the 70s and for singles in the 80s. And as I wrote before, the levels were also changed for digital sales. From 2004-2006 Gold was 100k downloads sold and 200k was Platinum. They then changed it to match the 500kl/1 million levels in 2006. I've actually worn a hole in a vinyl record :)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2021 16:40:02 GMT -5
How do we know it's more popular? We were letting our tapes rock til our tapes popped in the 80s and 90s, it's just no one was measuring that consumption. The consumption was counted when you purchased it. Streams earn individual revenue for every single listen, which is why its on a per-listen/stream basis. You putting something into a cassette player after buying it, does not earn additional revenue for any parties. You buying the cassette was the main revenue. And due to the internet individual songs are definitely almost undoubtedly bigger than ever in consumption. You can listen to something unlimited times practically anywhere, songs can be bought unlimited times (not a limited stock i.e. physical singles), and can be easily obtained after years and decades. I don't think you'd be able to listen to music while on a 2 hour jog in 1968, nor be able to find/buy a song that peaked at #82 five years prior. The digital era has definitely made songs more consumed and available than ever, nonetheless to a wider population than decades ago. That's the problem with the formula though. A one time count vs an endless count. You just cannot compare the two in any shape or fashion.
|
|
iHype.
4x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2014
Posts: 4,611
|
Post by iHype. on Jan 7, 2021 16:45:44 GMT -5
The consumption was counted when you purchased it. Streams earn individual revenue for every single listen, which is why its on a per-listen/stream basis. You putting something into a cassette player after buying it, does not earn additional revenue for any parties. You buying the cassette was the main revenue. And due to the internet individual songs are definitely almost undoubtedly bigger than ever in consumption. You can listen to something unlimited times practically anywhere, songs can be bought unlimited times (not a limited stock i.e. physical singles), and can be easily obtained after years and decades. I don't think you'd be able to listen to music while on a 2 hour jog in 1968, nor be able to find/buy a song that peaked at #82 five years prior. The digital era has definitely made songs more consumed and available than ever, nonetheless to a wider population than decades ago. That's the problem with the formula though. A one time count vs an endless count. You just cannot compare the two in any shape or fashion. The formula that gives sales an advantage lol? The average person does not listen to every song they purchased 150 times. However, one sale is counted equivalent to 150 streams for every single purchase. Same with 1,500 streams equating to an album sale. There has to actually be a given dedicated listening for an album/song to get those streaming numbers from one person. If you buy a CD, listen one time, never listen again, it's still counted as 1 sale and thus the same as 1,500 individual listens. As I said though, due to technology and the internet making individual song consumption more easier than ever, songs can still get very high certifications because there is now a much larger group of people who individually consume them (outside radio).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2021 16:49:36 GMT -5
That's the problem with the formula though. A one time count vs an endless count. You just cannot compare the two in any shape or fashion. The formula that gives sales an advantage lol? The average person does not listen to every song they purchased 150 times. However, one sale is counted equivalent to 150 streams for every single purchase. Same with 1,500 streams equating to an album sale. There has to actually be a given dedicated listening for an album/song to get those streaming numbers from one person. If you buy a CD, listen one time, never listen again, it's still counted as 1 sale and thus the same as 1,500 individual listens. As I said though, due to technology and the internet making individual song consumption more easier than ever, songs can still get very high certifications because there is now a much larger group of people who individually consume them (outside radio). As I said, a purchase counts once FOREVER. 150 streams isn't even listening to a song once a day for hakf a year. there is no sales advantage.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2021 16:59:04 GMT -5
That's the problem with the formula though. A one time count vs an endless count. You just cannot compare the two in any shape or fashion. The formula that gives sales an advantage lol? The average person does not listen to every song they purchased 150 times. However, one sale is counted equivalent to 150 streams for every single purchase. Same with 1,500 streams equating to an album sale. There has to actually be a given dedicated listening for an album/song to get those streaming numbers from one person. If you buy a CD, listen one time, never listen again, it's still counted as 1 sale and thus the same as 1,500 individual listens. As I said though, due to technology and the internet making individual song consumption more easier than ever, songs can still get very high certifications because there is now a much larger group of people who individually consume them (outside radio). I can assure you my favorite songs from the 60s and 70#, even 80s and 90s That I bought, I have listened to well over 150 times. Shoot, once a week from the 70s would be over 2000. Even once a month is Over 500. same for favourite albums. 150 plays of an album (based on ten tracks) in thirty or forty years is a drop in the pocket of how many time my favorites have gotten played. people need to think long term in decades impact of today's policies rather than the immediate expected gratification of today's society.
|
|
kacpi
New Member
Joined: January 2019
Posts: 378
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by kacpi on Jan 7, 2021 17:54:20 GMT -5
I know someone already mentioned Good Days today's performance on Spotify but I think it's still worth noting:
And we love to see it! The replay value is crazy on this one.
|
|
|
Post by neverduplicated on Jan 7, 2021 18:15:08 GMT -5
I think the fundamental problem is that you just can't compare sales and streaming in terms of listeners. Yes, some people who buy a song or album might only listen a few times or they might listen hundreds of times over a year or decade or whatever, but by that same token plenty of people listen to songs on streaming they would have never purchased. Furthermore streaming is more like radio for some people where they just put a playlist on or let an album finish and then a bunch of songs they didn't actually choose to listen to get played, usually the same big hits that might get played on radio or payola'd on playlists. There are just too many problems with comparing sales and streams in terms of listeners, but you can compare them in terms of revenue.
I think what some people want is to have the same number of albums being certified at a certain level in the streaming era that were certified in the sales era. I kind of get this, but lots of albums are lasting way longer because of streaming than they ever would have during the sales era, so we also have to ask ourselves where those albums and singles streams will be decades from now.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2021 18:30:51 GMT -5
That's the problem with the formula though. A one time count vs an endless count. You just cannot compare the two in any shape or fashion. The formula that gives sales an advantage lol? The average person does not listen to every song they purchased 150 times. However, one sale is counted equivalent to 150 streams for every single purchase. Same with 1,500 streams equating to an album sale. There has to actually be a given dedicated listening for an album/song to get those streaming numbers from one person. If you buy a CD, listen one time, never listen again, it's still counted as 1 sale and thus the same as 1,500 individual listens. As I said though, due to technology and the internet making individual song consumption more easier than ever, songs can still get very high certifications because there is now a much larger group of people who individually consume them (outside radio). One final observation, are you telng me you won't have listened to your favourite drake songs 150 times at least in the next thirty years? I'm guessing it will be a lot more than that many times. see there really isn't That much difference between kinds, teens and young adults today than in the 60s or 80s or any descee. Today they stream often their favorite songs. In the older times, we did the same thing, laid on our beds and listened to the 45 or cassingle we just bought over and over. In fact, I think a solid argument could be made that the older group listened to a song they bought much more often than a streamed song today. Why? Because unlike today and access to limitless variety, many of us would have been lucky to have a dozen new songs a year. So the limited supply we had, really did get overplayed due to that constraint. that is why I say in terms of charts, you just cannot make up some number that a purchase is equal x streams. The whole environment was different. Which therefore makes record And achievements comparisons as well undoable. Today's record holders are clearly the best of today. Yesterday's record holders the best of old times. Who is better of those groups? It's incomparable. There can be no answer. however, I am confident in stating I believe Tony Burrows record snd achievement is the only hot 100 record that will never be Broken! ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
degen
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Joined: August 2019
Posts: 2,173
|
Post by degen on Jan 7, 2021 19:28:31 GMT -5
I think the fundamental problem is that you just can't compare sales and streaming in terms of listeners. Yes, some people who buy a song or album might only listen a few times or they might listen hundreds of times over a year or decade or whatever, but by that same token plenty of people listen to songs on streaming they would have never purchased. Furthermore streaming is more like radio for some people where they just put a playlist on or let an album finish and then a bunch of songs they didn't actually choose to listen to get played, usually the same big hits that might get played on radio or payola'd on playlists. There are just too many problems with comparing sales and streams in terms of listeners, but you can compare them in terms of revenue. I think what some people want is to have the same number of albums being certified at a certain level in the streaming era that were certified in the sales era. I kind of get this, but lots of albums are lasting way longer because of streaming than they ever would have during the sales era, so we also have to ask ourselves where those albums and singles streams will be decades from now. Not to play devils advocate but there is just as much proof that streaming has caused album eras to be cut short. An era like “Thank You, Next” would’ve probably lasted almost as long as “Teenage Dream” in 2010. Maybe not that long, but you get what I mean. For big artists, streaming has made it hard for albums to go 4, 5, 6 singles deep. Thus, their albums aren’t making the same impact that albums in the 80s, 90s, 00s due to rapid consumption in the streaming era.
|
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,927
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Jan 7, 2021 19:44:08 GMT -5
I think the fundamental problem is that you just can't compare sales and streaming in terms of listeners. Yes, some people who buy a song or album might only listen a few times or they might listen hundreds of times over a year or decade or whatever, but by that same token plenty of people listen to songs on streaming they would have never purchased. Furthermore streaming is more like radio for some people where they just put a playlist on or let an album finish and then a bunch of songs they didn't actually choose to listen to get played, usually the same big hits that might get played on radio or payola'd on playlists. There are just too many problems with comparing sales and streams in terms of listeners, but you can compare them in terms of revenue. I think what some people want is to have the same number of albums being certified at a certain level in the streaming era that were certified in the sales era. I kind of get this, but lots of albums are lasting way longer because of streaming than they ever would have during the sales era, so we also have to ask ourselves where those albums and singles streams will be decades from now. Not to play devils advocate but there is just as much proof that streaming has caused album eras to be cut short. An era like “Thank You, Next” would’ve probably lasted almost as long as “Teenage Dream” in 2010. Maybe not that long, but you get what I mean. For big artists, streaming has made it hard for albums to go 4, 5, 6 singles deep. Thus, their albums aren’t making the same impact that albums in the 80s, 90s, 00s due to rapid consumption in the streaming era. yes, but streaming makes it possible for me to "consume" units of albums released years and years ago that didn't ever make it on to Billboard 200. it also makes it possible to track the consumption of recurrent hits, whereas sales is a metric that essentially dies completely after the song/album's run is done. Rihanna was one of the most streamed/consumed artists of the year despite not releasing an album since 2016. this wouldn't be possible to track if not for streaming. thank u, next era was cut short, yes, but "7 rings" was back in US Spotify 200 the other day. the level of "impact" of the hit albums has not changed, but the way in which we experience albums and are able to document their performances have.
|
|
|
Post by neverduplicated on Jan 7, 2021 21:25:18 GMT -5
Plus it’s very common now for album tracks to amass enough streams to gold, platinum, or even multiplatinum, bringing into question how many “singles” an era really has. Many album tracks from the biggest artists are bigger than singles from less successful artists.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,813
|
Post by Gary on Jan 7, 2021 21:43:36 GMT -5
yeah the word "single" doesn't really have a lot of meaning anyomre. The industry does not have a true "singles" chart anymore, just song charts
|
|
gikem
3x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2020
Posts: 3,813
|
Post by gikem on Jan 7, 2021 21:49:23 GMT -5
Not to play devils advocate but there is just as much proof that streaming has caused album eras to be cut short. An era like “Thank You, Next” would’ve probably lasted almost as long as “Teenage Dream” in 2010. Maybe not that long, but you get what I mean. For big artists, streaming has made it hard for albums to go 4, 5, 6 singles deep. Thus, their albums aren’t making the same impact that albums in the 80s, 90s, 00s due to rapid consumption in the streaming era. I consider Delicate to be the last truly successful fourth-or-later single from an A-list artist before streaming truly took over, and that was when Taylor was still refusing to put her music on streaming services. They're still possible today (see Nonstop/In My Feelings by Drake or even What You Know Bout Love by Pop Smoke), but certainly not as common. In the cases of IMF and WYKBL, they needed viral social media trends to become singles.
|
|
|
Post by blanksnake17 on Jan 7, 2021 22:20:17 GMT -5
I agree that Delicate was the last truly successful post album (by months) fourth single (from an A-list artist). Tbh Taylor only got it to be successful because single 2/3 underperformed and she was coming off of the MASSIVE 1989 era.
|
|
needyslovelanguage
New Member
If you gon' keep speakin' my love language, you can talk your shit all night
Joined: November 2020
Posts: 121
|
Post by needyslovelanguage on Jan 7, 2021 22:28:34 GMT -5
What about Watermelon Sugar? Or is Harry not big enough to be an a-lister yet?
|
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,927
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Jan 7, 2021 22:31:51 GMT -5
What about Watermelon Sugar? Or is Harry not big enough to be an a-lister yet? "Watermelon Sugar" is Harry's second radio single from Fine Line in the US
|
|
|
Post by blanksnake17 on Jan 7, 2021 22:35:10 GMT -5
I would say Nonstop but that peaked before Delicate and also it was most successful the album release week and the weeks following so eh it doesn’t feel the same to me.
|
|
kingvavis
Gold Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 835
|
Post by kingvavis on Jan 7, 2021 22:35:56 GMT -5
I would also say that Girls Like You was also one of the last post-album singles to be huge even though it got big off a remix. It was Maroon 5's 5th single from their 2017 album.
|
|
gikem
3x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2020
Posts: 3,813
|
Post by gikem on Jan 7, 2021 22:57:37 GMT -5
I would also say that Girls Like You was also one of the last post-album singles to be huge even though it got big off a remix. It was Maroon 5's 5th single from their 2017 album. I completely forgot about that, thanks. Of course, in that case, it was because of the remix with Cardi, which is one of the more traditional ways of releasing late-album singles. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Don't Wanna Know and Cold were actually considered bonus tracks on Red Pill Blues. What Lovers Do was the true lead single for that album, which would technically make GLY the third single.
|
|
jaffery
New Member
Joined: October 2019
Posts: 317
|
Post by jaffery on Jan 7, 2021 23:09:00 GMT -5
Biebers video was just deleted from YouTube at 30m views. Guess it was because of the blood at the end?
|
|
dovahduck
Platinum Member
Kavinsky finally dropped! :)
Joined: April 2018
Posts: 1,843
|
Post by dovahduck on Jan 7, 2021 23:54:57 GMT -5
^Bruh
|
|