Quote:
Originally posted by liberalmusiclover
 How does it not make any sense?
There are clearly songs that should have been #1 hits (like I Knew You Were Trouble.) but they were held back by streaming. Rihanna is the only one of the main pop girls who has had an On-Demand Songs #1 (with Diamonds, but she hasn't released any of the other songs on there so her odds are slim to none for her current singles unless she discounts like Bruno did). |
Well Taylor and her label aren't on the streaming tip, so it was only hard because they chose not to take advantage of it. That doesn't make going #1 harder. And imo, the songs that were clear #1 hits have gone #1, unless you have examples of those who failed to and weren't in a Swift-like predicament.
And now there really isn't any holding back.
Streaming Songs gives fair streaming to aid to their chances at #1 success. It came too late for "IKYWT." tho.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
It seems that songs are staying at #1 for longer though, thus meaning less songs are going #1.
|
The ratio of songs 6-9 weeks+ are the same as pre-streaming inclusion. All the latest long-lasting No. 1s would've still been the same with how they performed in sales and airplay. Streaming didn't do anything for them that they wouldn't haven't done without its advantage. Only time streaming has effected the outcome of the No. 1 is in the case of Bieber's "Boyfriend," only because it had 0 streaming upon its debut versus fun.'s 1 million.
Once "Thrift Shop" is dethroned by Bruno this week, we'll be back into switching No. 1s, because no song is as strong as it performed (or the others that lasted long). Similar to how last year's trinity died down and Flo Rida/Taylor played around at No. 1 before "OMN" came and dominated (due to radio advantage; not streaming).
