| |
Chart Listings: Billboard Charts (January 3-10, 2016)
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by alexanderao
It'll be fascinating to see how the public's perception of albums changes as time goes on. I don't necessarily think they'll be rendered irrelevant; album sales will continue their steady decline, but I feel that there will be a very sizeable market for them for the foreseeable future.
Albums with massive hit singles like Uptown Special are naturally going to continue to benefit on the charts.
|
I wouldn't say sizable. I'd say the market will merely remain viable for albums to continue to exist as a format, sort of like vinyl records in the last several years.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 43,331
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
As far as limiting it to 12 tracks and downweighting the top 2, I don't think that makes much sense, because it doesn't offer a legitimately comprehensive picture of the album's overall success or consumption.
I'd rather stick with the US model.
|
I agree.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/11/2008
Posts: 2,156
|
we should have a pop bars for albums... Im scared for "25"... it is still at #1 but how far? "purpose" is at #2 and at #17... plus the SPS...
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2013
Posts: 19,579
|
The UK one >
It's way more fair and stops singles artists with one massive hit looking like their album is a success.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
If there's anything at all I would change about the US model, it would be to adapt the TEA ratio to be appropriate for each album, instead of being an arbitrary 10 tracks = 1 sale. Either make it the standard edition's track count, or that of the longest commercially accessible edition, or if possible adapt it to the particular version that the person is purchasing from. If technology allows, that could be done with streaming as well and account for the variation in revenue from different platforms.
Also, and this might be controversial, I'd still add in video streaming. Clearly because it has a very low revenue yield per stream it would be weighted far lower than other streaming sources, but I feel that if the aim is a consumption model, it should be as complete a model as possible.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Doogle
The UK one >
It's way more fair and stops singles artists with one massive hit looking like their album is a success.
|
Their album IS a success as far as consumption is concerned.
There's nothing artificial or inflated about the numbers of those songs or the resulting SEA/TEA totals - that's just how people perceive it, because of the traditional notions we have of how the industry works.
It's a question of adapting attitudes, not of limiting high-performing singles to seem "more fair."
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/11/2012
Posts: 4,202
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
I don't know if a sale of an album currently equals 100 streams anyway in the US, though, so I don't particularly see the point there.
Actually, because I was unsure, I looked it up:
|
Not 100 but 1000.
Ratio 1,000 for on-demand streams is more accurate tbh than 1:1,500. Standard price of digital album is ~13$ (let's say). It means right holders get $7.4 per copy. Spotify paid $0.0072 per stream for right holders. So 1 album = 1,029 ~1,000
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/20/2011
Posts: 4,134
|
Before the Internet, people would buy an album based solely off one single they liked. I know I did. There was no other way. Now you can just buy the single, but it should still count for the album.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by popmusic
Not 100 but 1000.
Ratio 1,000 for on-demand streams is more accurate tbh than 1:1,500. Standard price of digital album is ~13$ (let's say). It means right holders get $7.4 per copy. Spotify paid $0.0072 per stream for right holders. So 1 album = 1,029 ~1,000
|
That particular distinction only gives streaming more power, which I'm fine with, but the post I quoted seemed to imply that the figure was 100 streams = 1 sale in the US.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/6/2010
Posts: 4,317
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
That particular distinction only gives streaming more power, which I'm fine with, but the post I quoted seemed to imply that the figure was 100 streams = 1 sale in the US.
|
My mistake for including the 100 streams. Its in reference to UK Singles chart
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/1/2011
Posts: 24,324
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ℐℯίɓℴу
How bout if it will be on Spotify and will have a Music Video? Streaming #1 should be easy.
|
not as easy as it sounds, the streaming chart is unpredictable and lots of huge songs by notable acts miss #1 on streaming
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 3,096
|
Come on Sorry 
Pull through!!! Streaming rn
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 11,012
|
Quote:
Originally posted by novembers17th
Come on Sorry
Pull through!!! Streaming rn
|
it will 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/4/2007
Posts: 24,859
|
#MusicHasValue.
Only count streams for BB200 if someone paid for that streaming service. 
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by fridayteenage
#MusicHasValue.
Only count streams for BB200 if someone paid for that streaming service. |
This I am fine with. Free streaming is a mess and needs to be decreased or reworked, because all it does is lose money.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 43,331
|
Quote:
Originally posted by fridayteenage
#MusicHasValue.
Only count streams for BB200 if someone paid for that streaming service. |
Well, now the chart isn't an accurate measure of popularity because you're excluding streams from the majority of the streaming public.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/4/2005
Posts: 5,423
|
Quote:
Originally posted by alexanderao
Well, now the chart isn't an accurate measure of popularity because you're excluding streams from the majority of the streaming public.
|
No it's accurate, they don't include illegal downloads so what's your point?
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by alexanderao
Well, now the chart isn't an accurate measure of popularity because you're excluding streams from the majority of the streaming public.
|
While this is conceptually true, it might serve as an incentive for Spotify and other outlets to start reducing the number of free subscriptions and eventually discontinuing free services. And while that may sound harsh to an extent, it's almost necessary to best benefit the whole industry. Also, if we take the BB200 as the "main" chart, then it can be argued whether free streaming equates to "consumption."
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 43,331
|
Quote:
Originally posted by dussymob
No it's accurate, they don't include illegal downloads so what's your point?
|
I was responding to fridayteenage's proposal that free streams shouldn't count towards the BB200. Because the majority of people streaming music are doing so for free, not tracking their streams would lower the accuracy of that chart significantly.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 12/7/2008
Posts: 87,284
|
Quote:
Originally posted by jose168
not as easy as it sounds, the streaming chart is unpredictable and lots of huge songs by notable acts miss #1 on streaming
|
Examples?
|
|
|
|
|
|
