Chart Listings: Billboard Charts (June 19-26, 2016) - Page 15

Jeiboy

Meghan at #18 making ATRL haters blood reaching near boiling point + fumigations commence

her power>>>>

luckythisway

Quote:

Originally posted by alexanderao

Chasing Pavements; it was her first hit, peaking at #21 in 2009.

Ohhhh I didn't know what the abbreviation stood for.

Bey Admired

Quote:

Originally posted by alexanderao

But you claimed that a majority of the general public takes the latter stance, not just stans of artists who do well on iTunes.

Hopefully everyone will agree that streaming's influence is warranted when sales have declined to the point where streaming is not just the preferred form of music consumption but the dominant one and sales are rendered totally irrelevant as a metric to gauge popularity (like what is occurring in Sweden, as blackbeatxx mentioned).

I agree that streaming should be included but not to the extent it is, not yet. Too much, too soon. In my opinion, it's truly destroyed the credibility of Billboard, especially when we now know that Spotify and Billboard have a 'special relationship'. Isn't that interesting? Tut tut. Billboard should really remain neutral and help to maintain the competitiveness in the streaming market since they place such weighting on it. Everyone knows that a monopoly of the streaming market isn't good for the consumer.

Moving on, I think maybe there should be a consumption chart which includes everything; whilst having the Hot 100/B200 for just sales.

Alternatively, we could have what we have now but something like this:

75% Sales
15% Streaming
10% Radio

Now, if you want to talk about countries where sales are virtually nonexistent and streaming is the main method of consumption, then I don't see a problem with just including streaming 100%. Why? Because there isn't one. The bigger markets are a different kettle of fish.

I just can't get behind a system where an artist can essentially sell tens of thousands of albums worth $10+ dollars but lose their number 1 (or even top 10) achievement to someone who may have sold nearly next to no physical sales, but is dominant on streaming. Streaming is not a true metric of popularity in my honest opinion. At one point, sales gained popularity and their success through word of mouth due to quality and substance. Now, there's no such thing. Literally anyone can go to Spotify or any other streaming platform and listen to the album - completely free. It does not mean they enjoy the album. It does not mean the album is good. It doesn't even mean the album itself is popular.

Like I said, this could go round and round in circles. It is my opinion that the GP are generally more concerned with who sold the most albums, not whose album was most streamed.

There are also a lot of problems that need to be fixed, such as the fact that listening to a song can contribute to an overall album sale. There needs to be a way of gauging how many people actually listened to the album entirely from beginning to end. As of now, there's no measurement for that. Instead, people may only listen to 25% of the album over and over again, leading to an album sale.

I'm not totally against streaming. I think it's a brilliant method of consumption, I use it myself. In fact, I use it more often than I buy an album. However, sales are not dead yet. Let's stop trying to make out that sales are disastrous. They're not. Sales have still got a lot of steam left. Maybe in the next 2 decades, streaming will become the most important method of consumption and most representative metric of popularity, and maybe we'll live in a world where sales are null. That time is not now.

Ivan_brit

Quote:

Originally posted by simmnfierzig

Full early predictions

1. One Dance 415 (=)
2. Can't Stop The Feeling 365 (=)
3. Panda 347 (=)
4. Don't Let Me Down 313 (=)
5. This Is What You Came For 294 (+1)
6. Cheap Thrills 245 (+2)
7. Needed Me 237 (=)
8. Work From Home 232 (-3)
9. Don't Mind 231 (+1)
10. I Took A Pill In Ibiza 207 (-1)
11. Ride 203 (+2)
12. Just Like Fire 184 (=)
13. 7 Years 179 (-2)
14. Dangerous Woman 163 (+1)
15. H.O.L.Y. 162 (+2)
16. Work 155 (=)
17. Send My Love 152 (+3)
18. Me Too 151 (=)
19. Controlla 147 (+4)
20. Close 140 (-6)

21-100

Panda Need to exit the top 10 ASAP!!
TIWYCF top 5

Hymm For The Weekend climbing

Flex All in My Head Debut

comming for another hit

Kiss It Better Charting another week at Hot 100

KEWK & Into You comming

alexanderao

Quote:

Originally posted by Bey Admired

I agree that streaming should be included but not to the extent it is, not yet. Too much, too soon. In my opinion, it's truly destroyed the credibility of Billboard, especially when we now know that Spotify and Billboard have a 'special relationship'. Isn't that interesting? Tut tut. Billboard should really remain neutral and help to maintain the competitiveness in the streaming market since they place such weighting on it. Everyone knows that a monopoly of the streaming market isn't good for the consumer.

Moving on, I think maybe there should be a consumption chart which includes everything; whilst having the Hot 100/B200 for just sales.

Alternatively, we could have what we have now but something like this:

75% Sales
15% Streaming
10% Radio

Now, if you want to talk about countries where sales are virtually nonexistent and streaming is the main method of consumption, then I don't see a problem with just including streaming 100%. Why? Because there isn't one. The bigger markets are a different kettle of fish.

I just can't get behind a system where an artist can essentially sell tens of thousands of albums worth $10+ dollars but lose their number 1 (or even top 10) achievement to someone who may have sold nearly next to no physical sales, but is dominant on streaming. Streaming is not a true metric of popularity in my honest opinion. At one point, sales gained popularity and their success through word of mouth due to quality and substance. Now, there's no such thing. Literally anyone can go to Spotify or any other streaming platform and listen to the album - completely free. It does not mean they enjoy the album. It does not mean the album is good. It doesn't even mean the album itself is popular.

Like I said, this could go round and round in circles. It is my opinion that the GP are generally more concerned with who sold the most albums, not whose album was most streamed.

There is also a lot of problems that need to be fixed, such as the fact that listening to a song can contribute to an overall album sale. There needs to be a way of gauging how many people actually listened to the album entirely from beginning to end. As of now, there's no measurement for that. Instead, people may only listen to 25% of the album over and over again, leading to an album sale.

I'm not totally against streaming. I think it's a brilliant method of consumption, I use it myself. In fact, I use it more often than I buy an album. However, sales are not dead yet. Let's stop trying to make out that sales are disastrous. They're not. Sales have still got a lot of steam left. Maybe in the next 2 decades, streaming will become the dominant method of consumption, and we'll live in a world where sales are null. That time is not now.

The Hot 100 and Billboard 200 are consumption charts. That's the reason that streaming is included in the first place; because it's a method of consumption relevant enough to be incorporated into a formula that approximates popularity. I fully believe in separate sales charts as long as people are still buying music, and so does Billboard (Hot Digital Songs & Top Album Sales). But it doesn't make sense to me to suggest that sales should matter so much more than airplay and streaming at a time when downloads are quickly decreasing, radio is stable, and streaming is quickly growing. Even when sales were at their peak in early 2013, I believe they only had around a 60-65% influence (feel free to correct me on this).

The thing here is that the Hot 100 does not care about how much money the artists/labels bring in. It cares about how popular the songs are; to say that streaming is not a true metric of popularity simply because it doesn't bring in as much money as sales is illogical. It does seem counterintuitive that the song that sells more should finish below one that sells less, and I get why people are angry about that. But when we consider the states of sales and streaming, I personally think it begins to make more sense.

You are right that sales aren't dead and that streaming isn't dominant yet. Billboard agrees, hence sales still having a ~25% influence on the Hot 100 and streaming having a hardly dominant ~50%.

Rose Mulet

It's refreshing to see songs like: Cheap Thrills, Close, Me Too, Send My Love, Never Be Like You, Kill Em With Kindness, Wherever I Go, and Kiss It Better, make big gains, because it's nice to see something new besides overplayed songs like songs like: Work, Love Yourself, 7 Years, Stressed Out, Sorry, Cake By The Ocean, My House, Me Myself & I, and Panda.

Cz!

Sia is so coming for the top spot. Who would've thought 1 month ago.

Jeiboy

Quote:

Originally posted by Cz!

Sia is so coming for the top spot. Who would've thought 1 month ago.

If Drake releases the video. Sia's gonna be blocked

Cz!

Quote:

Originally posted by jeiβoy

If Drake releases the video. Sia's gonna be blocked

Will that ever happen though? I'm starting to doubt it.

Bey Admired

Quote:

Originally posted by alexanderao

The Hot 100 and Billboard 200 are consumption charts. That's the reason that streaming is included in the first place; because it's a method of consumption relevant enough to be incorporated into a formula that approximates popularity. I fully believe in separate sales charts as long as people are still buying music, and so does Billboard (Hot Digital Songs & Top Album Sales). But it doesn't make sense to me to suggest that sales should matter so much more than airplay and streaming at a time when downloads are quickly decreasing, radio is stable, and streaming is quickly growing. Even when sales were at their peak in early 2013, I believe they only had around a 60-65% influence (feel free to correct me on this).

The thing here is that the Hot 100 does not care about how much money the artists/labels bring in. It cares about how popular the songs are; to say that streaming is not a true metric of popularity simply because it doesn't bring in as much money as sales is illogical. It does seem counterintuitive that the song that sells more should finish below one that sells less, and I get why people are angry about that. But when we consider the states of sales and streaming, I personally think it begins to make more sense.

You are right that sales aren't dead and that streaming isn't dominant yet. Billboard agrees, hence sales still having a ~25% influence on the Hot 100 and streaming having a hardly dominant ~50%.

I'm genuinely trying to avoid a debate here, because I've had this debate countless times before, and both sides have come out with the same opinion that they went in with. I have to say, I don't remember saying that streaming is not a true metric of popularity because it doesn't generate as much revenue. No, not at all. Rather, I insist that when someone is willing to spend their $10+ on an album, that alone should be respected by Billboard. That's, of course, opposed to streaming which to free subscribers, can cost nothing. Art has value. It is my opinion that streaming depreciates that value. It depreciates the art so much that the value it holds becomes almost obsolete. I don't believe there is any artist out there who truly believes that streaming is productive to their artistic tendencies. I do believe that there are artists out there who can appreciate that their art is able to reach wider audiences due to the broader scope of streaming. That is a huge positive with regards to this almost 'throw-away' method of consumption. I just find it sad that in an era which has proven that sales aren't dead, that so many people are so very eager to move onto an era of this diminishing and hasty method of consumption. I know, I know. It's coming whether I like it or not, right?

I think anyone who buys albums can contest to the fact that it is much more of an experience in every sense than streaming. It is memorabilia. It is a moment. It is an experience. Streaming just doesn't come close. As for quality, well that's here nor there. That changes depending on what you listen to the music on, etc.

I think Billboard has done a great disservice to the music industry by being so expeditious with their seeming eagerness to move towards a formula that favours streaming over sales. There are many, whether you like it or not, who will never consider future records that have been aided by streaming, in the same regard as the past. It's a dilution of history. It's a dilution of quality. It's a dilution of art.

alexanderao

Quote:

Originally posted by Bey Admired

I'm genuinely trying to avoid a debate here, because I've had this debate countless times before, and both sides have come out with the same opinion that they went in with. I have to say, I don't remember saying that streaming is not a true metric of popularity because it doesn't generate as much revenue. No, not at all. Rather, I insist that when someone is willing to spend their $10+ on an album, that alone should be respected by Billboard. That's, of course, opposed to streaming which to free subscribers, can cost nothing. Art has value. It is my opinion that streaming depreciates that value. It depreciates the art so much that the value it holds becomes almost obsolete. I don't believe there is any artist out there who truly believes that streaming is productive to their artistic tendencies. I do believe that there are artists out there who can appreciate that their art is able to reach wider audiences due to the broader scope of streaming. That is a huge positive with regards to this almost 'throw-away' method of consumption. I just find it sad that in an era which has proven that sales aren't dead, that so many people are so very eager to move onto an era of this diminishing and hasty method of consumption. I know, I know. It's coming whether I like it or not, right?

I think anyone who buys albums can contest to the fact that it is much more of an experience in every sense than streaming. It is memorabilia. It is a moment. It is an experience. Streaming just doesn't come close. As for quality, well that's here nor there. That changes depending on what you listen to the music on, etc.

I think Billboard has done a great disservice to the music industry by being so expeditious with their seeming eagerness to move towards a formula that favours streaming over sales. There are many, whether you like it or not, who will never consider future records that have been aided by streaming, in the same regard as the past. It's a dilution of history. It's a dilution of quality. It's a dilution of art.

It's not Billboard's job to look at sales and streaming from a moral standpoint, and you're basically saying that it is when you declare that they should respect album purchases when putting together their charts.

Billboard's job is to compile popularity charts as accurately as possible. The influence of sales and streaming on their charts depends not on whether streaming siphons value out of music, but on how relevant each metric is. If a metric is increasing in popularity, its influence on the charts should increase, regardless of whether anyone at Billboard feels about that metric morally. Even if Silvio Pietroluongo staunchly believed that streaming is horrible for the industry, I'm sure he would tell you that he prioritizes an accurate chart over a chart that complies with his morals.

A true disservice to the industry would be to produce an inaccurate popularity chart. I do not understand how adjusting the formulas used to create the charts to reflect general consumer trends is a move of that sort.

Jennifer

SEA is made to equal the sale of an album. So the money debate is useless. Drake is making MORE money from streams than those artists who are selling albums. So yes, artists are being rewarded for their art. There is no difference in selling 100k and getting 150 million streams (or whatever the equivalent # is)- they generate the same $$$

And streaming is accessible to a much larger portion of the population. Sorry but a lot of people don't have $ to spend 13 dollars on every artist they like. Do people of lower socioeconomic status not matter? Lol like.

Streaming isn't the future. It's literally the now.

ArtAngel36

Hi! I'm new to ATRL!

Are the early predictions of Heathens without Youtube? The video came out today and it's already at 500K (mostly from the US I assume).

fridayteenage

Quote:

SEA is made to equal the sale of an album.

I don't know if they're actually equal in royalties tho.

Quote:

It's not Billboard's job to look at sales and streaming from a moral standpoint.

It should be, so they can block evil people from hitting #1.

Bey Admired

Quote:

Originally posted by Jennifer

SEA is made to equal the sale of an album. So the money debate is useless. Drake is making MORE money from streams than those artists who are selling albums. So yes, artists are being rewarded for their art. There is no difference in selling 100k and getting 150 million streams (or whatever the equivalent # is)- they generate the same $$$

And streaming is accessible to a much larger portion of the population. Sorry but a lot of people don't have $ to spend 13 dollars on every artist they like. Do people of lower socioeconomic status not matter? Lol like.

Streaming isn't the future. It's literally the now.

You totally missed the point, but okay.

castle13

Quote:

Originally posted by umich

Taylor Swift, "Shake It Off"

1 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 1

It's actually the only number-one debut to do so.

Queen of Pop`!

Tylerbv

ff church bells barely increasing next week
she's really not meant to get a top 40 this era

Cap10Planet

Quote:

Originally posted by Jennifer

SEA is made to equal the sale of an album. So the money debate is useless. Drake is making MORE money from streams than those artists who are selling albums. So yes, artists are being rewarded for their art. There is no difference in selling 100k and getting 150 million streams (or whatever the equivalent # is)- they generate the same $$$

And streaming is accessible to a much larger portion of the population. Sorry but a lot of people don't have $ to spend 13 dollars on every artist they like. Do people of lower socioeconomic status not matter? Lol like.

Streaming isn't the future. It's literally the now.

Lmao, Drake is definitely not getting paid more from streaming as those album juggernauts are getting from their strong album sales, hence the whole argument that "streaming is disposable," the whole premise of Tidal, Taylor going against Spotify (and we all know she's money hungry lol) etc. Adele made Forbes a few years back with mainly her strong album sales. Drake couldn't get there with just being a streaming juggernaut.

iHype.

1500 streams pays similar to the amount of 1 album sale. Label contracts with artists, songwriters, and producers dictate how the amount gets split though.

According to RIAA, in 2015:
Paid Streaming - $1.218,9B
Ad-Supported Streaming - $385.1M
= $1.604B made from streaming during 2015 in US.

According to Nielsen:

317.2B streams during 2015 in US.

$1.604B / 317.2B streams = $0.0050567465321564 per stream.

$0.0050567465321564 x 1500 streams = $7.59 made; similar to an album purchase.

And since VEVO isn't included in SEA, if you divided the money made by audio streams only by the amount of audio streams, the amount made for 1500 streams would even be higher. ($10+)

As I said, it's the contracts with labels that dictate who gets what. If Streaming made little to no money, the industry profit wouldn't be increasing due to it.

1500 = 1 album is a fine formula. Billboard at the end of the day has nothing to do with artists being ripped off by their labels.

Cap10Planet

And considering Drake has a gazillion writers, Views sampled like crazy, etc. he's definitely not getting much of a cut from streaming.