| |
Discussion: Why is everyone flopping?
Member Since: 5/21/2009
Posts: 11,151
|
Quote:
Originally posted by musicman101
You know what I've always found extremely strange about the music industry in the 2010's? Okay, so it's no secret that music sales are dying. Most artists make their revenue and prove their relevancy based off of how popular their tours are. In order to have a successful tour, the performer more or less has to convince people to come and see them in the first place. In simpler words, it means that you would think they'd be talented. A talented performer = a good show.
But instead, the modern music industry has been promoting the most untalented, undeserving, boring people who have absolutely NO performance skills, can barely sing live, and are almost completely not involved in the creation of their music, despite what they may claim in interviews. And even the acts that are perceived as "talented" nowadays would be AVERAGE as hell 20-30 years ago. If sales are dead, why do the record labels think that people with almost no musical talent are gonna attract large numbers of people to come see them perform? Isn't that the main source of income nowadays? I just find the whole thing so strange. There's a reason why older acts ranging anywhere from Madonna, Beyoncé, U2, The Rolling Stones, to P!nk can gross hundreds of millions of dollars despite having commercially peaked years ago. I don't think were ever gonna see a $100m touring gross from any of the acts that debuted this decade except for maybe Bruno Mars and possibly Ed Sheeran (who both debuted in early 2010). One Direction was the only act that debuted this decade (2011) that managed to and they're... well... over.
The sad thing is, the talent is OUT THERE. It's just not being discovered, embraced, or promoted. The standard for what the average person considers someone as "talented" has dropped dramatically in the past 5-6 years!
|
This needs to be mandatory read for all ATRLers. 
This site's obsession with below mediocre pop stars is just unfathomable. Mainstream pop listeners aren't interested in the talent anymore, they just want the spectacle and glamour that comes along with being a chart success.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 3,396
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Auris
Sis in what world? ARTPOP is dead on streaming - most the songs haven't even reached 10 million plays 
There were 1.5 million copies of ANTI given away to people who then didn't even have to buy it, plus nearly a million more who have bought it ANTI also every song has 20m+ listens and has been T10 for far longer than ARTPOP wyd? |
Maybe because Spotify was at least 5 times smaller back in 2013? This is like saying The Fame flopped because it has no billion+ music videos on youtube 
now: #1 gets 45M weekly streams on Spotify
July 2015: #1 got 17M weekly streams ( https://spotifycharts.com/regional/g...10--2015-07-17)
you can stay deluded but ARTPOP was more successful.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/26/2012
Posts: 3,272
|
Beyonce is slaying with PURE sales.
Rihanna & Drake have relied on streaming....
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 23,368
|
Quote:
Originally posted by musicman101
You know what I've always found extremely strange about the music industry in the 2010's? Okay, so it's no secret that music sales are dying. Most artists make their revenue and prove their relevancy based off of how popular their tours are. In order to have a successful tour, the performer more or less has to convince people to come and see them in the first place. In simpler words, it means that you would think they'd be talented. A talented performer = a good show.
But instead, the modern music industry has been promoting the most untalented, undeserving, boring people who have absolutely NO performance skills, can barely sing live, and are almost completely not involved in the creation of their music, despite what they may claim in interviews. And even the acts that are perceived as "talented" nowadays would be AVERAGE as hell 20-30 years ago. If sales are dead, why do the record labels think that people with almost no musical talent are gonna attract large numbers of people to come see them perform? Isn't that the main source of income nowadays? I just find the whole thing so strange. There's a reason why older acts ranging anywhere from Madonna, Beyoncé, U2, The Rolling Stones, to P!nk can gross hundreds of millions of dollars despite having commercially peaked years ago. I don't think were ever gonna see a $100m touring gross from any of the acts that debuted this decade except for maybe Bruno Mars and possibly Ed Sheeran (who both debuted in early 2010). One Direction was the only act that debuted this decade (2011) that managed to and they're... well... over.
The sad thing is, the talent is OUT THERE. It's just not being discovered, embraced, or promoted. The standard for what the average person considers someone as "talented" has dropped dramatically in the past 5-6 years!
|
I think Ari G has a chance to break the 100m. But yeah what you said basically.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/9/2012
Posts: 18,572
|
Quote:
Originally posted by musicman101
You know what I've always found extremely strange about the music industry in the 2010's? Okay, so it's no secret that music sales are dying. Most artists make their revenue and prove their relevancy based off of how popular their tours are. In order to have a successful tour, the performer more or less has to convince people to come and see them in the first place. In simpler words, it means that you would think they'd be talented. A talented performer = a good show.
But instead, the modern music industry has been promoting the most untalented, undeserving, boring people who have absolutely NO performance skills, can barely sing live, and are almost completely not involved in the creation of their music, despite what they may claim in interviews. And even the acts that are perceived as "talented" nowadays would be AVERAGE as hell 20-30 years ago. If sales are dead, why do the record labels think that people with almost no musical talent are gonna attract large numbers of people to come see them perform? Isn't that the main source of income nowadays? I just find the whole thing so strange. There's a reason why older acts ranging anywhere from Madonna, Beyoncé, U2, The Rolling Stones, to P!nk can gross hundreds of millions of dollars despite having commercially peaked years ago. I don't think were ever gonna see a $100m touring gross from any of the acts that debuted this decade except for maybe Bruno Mars and possibly Ed Sheeran (who both debuted in early 2010). One Direction was the only act that debuted this decade (2011) that managed to and they're... well... over.
The sad thing is, the talent is OUT THERE. It's just not being discovered, embraced, or promoted. The standard for what the average person considers someone as "talented" has dropped dramatically in the past 5-6 years!
|
I agree, but Bruno's last tour already grossed over 100 million.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/2/2014
Posts: 13,378
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Honeyßéy
Beyonce is slaying with PURE sales.
Rihanna & Drake have relied on streaming....
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/15/2012
Posts: 15,569
|
The ones who are flopping have been releasing bad music and are continuing to do. These artists don't seem to understand that they can't coast by on their names forever.
The music that smashes just happens to be good enough to connect with people. That's just it. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/2/2014
Posts: 13,378
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Swine
Maybe because Spotify was at least 5 times smaller back in 2013? This is like saying The Fame flopped because it has no billion+ music videos on youtube
now: #1 gets 45M weekly streams on Spotify
July 2015: #1 got 17M weekly streams ( https://spotifycharts.com/regional/g...10--2015-07-17)
you can stay deluded but ARTPOP was more successful. |
clocked.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/14/2007
Posts: 13,130
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DaXoXz
Justin bieber did not but i see your point
|
.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/2/2014
Posts: 7,343
|
Because a lot of people are still clinging onto old definitions of "flopping" & successful albums. It's 2016. We need to take into account that streaming, illegal downloads, and various other ways of listening to music without spending $25 on an album is now the norm.
Pop artists aren't flopping. That's completely paradoxical, the music industry is just shifting. Artists that are dominating streaming/the digital market will be remembered in the future for their digital success, nobody will care about physical album sales because it's essentially irrelevant in today's climate - especially among newer artists.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 758
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Honeyßéy
Beyonce is slaying with PURE sales.
Rihanna & Drake have relied on streaming....
|
.... You know Drake is outselling Bey in PURE sales in the US right... 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2013
Posts: 17,232
|
Rihanna, Beyonce, Drake and Adele didn't flop. However the majority of the Pop girls are and will continue flopping for a while (maybe up to a decade too) because we're in a new phase in which they jsut aren't the center of attention anymore. I'm really excited for the girls to be competitive again.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2011
Posts: 669
|
People need to know the diffrence between "subjective" underperforming and flopping. Cause RiRi is slaying them charts
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/16/2012
Posts: 1,912
|
B ain't flop. Others are only surviving due to features and steaming such as Rihanna.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/2/2014
Posts: 13,378
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RihannaFanKenn
People need to know the diffrence between "subjective" underperforming and flopping. Cause RiRi is slaying them charts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
