Streaming ruined the Billboard singles (*and albums) charts. It's all pointless now.

[dmbrocker]

Expect “All I Want For Christmas Is You” to be #1 again come December.

#2 with a bullet.



Look for a bunch of news stories next week about how "it took the Queen of Christmas to dethrone Taylor Swift"

Called it! No articles that I’ve seen yet with your exact take on it, though:

https://www.billboard.com/music/chart-b ... 85073/amp/

[skatexedge]

I can’t stand that fucking Mariah Carey song!

[dmbrocker]

Miley Cyrus' new album came out Friday. "Flowers" already hit the top of the charts, but who wants to bet the whole rest of the album will clog up the top ten spots for a week or so?

[TooOldToCare]

Miley Cyrus' new album came out Friday. "Flowers" already hit the top of the charts, but who wants to bet the whole rest of the album will clog up the top ten spots for a week or so?

It took me 5 minutes of reading to notice this thread’s time stamp. Anyway, I listened to Miley’s new album on Friday. Nothing as catchy as Flowers to my ear, but it’ll probably do as you suggest. I have yet to look at writing credits.

[dmbrocker]

Another case for the thread's title: it's been nearly a year since Harry Styles' "As It Was" hit the top of the charts, and that song is still hanging around in the top twenty nearly a year later. I mean, I actually think it's a good song, but THAT good? Good Lord! This would have never happened in the 80's!

[DemonFilth2001]

Another case for the thread's title: it's been nearly a year since Harry Styles' "As It Was" hit the top of the charts, and that song is still hanging around in the top twenty nearly a year later. I mean, I actually think it's a good song, but THAT good? Good Lord! This would have never happened in the 80's!

Never heard that song.

How did Miley's new album do?

[dmbrocker]

Another case for the thread's title: it's been nearly a year since Harry Styles' "As It Was" hit the top of the charts, and that song is still hanging around in the top twenty nearly a year later. I mean, I actually think it's a good song, but THAT good? Good Lord! This would have never happened in the 80's!

Never heard that song.

How did Miley's new album do?

“Flowers” has been a huge hit lately. Don’t really know about the rest of the album. Maybe the next single will get streamed a ton.

[Nate S Axel]

Another case for the thread's title: it's been nearly a year since Harry Styles' "As It Was" hit the top of the charts, and that song is still hanging around in the top twenty nearly a year later. I mean, I actually think it's a good song, but THAT good? Good Lord! This would have never happened in the 80's!

Never heard that song.

How did Miley's new album do?

Great question DemonFilth! Let's have a look. Miley's album is currently #11, dropping 7 spots from #4 last week! Hmm, who has the #1 album for the 4th week in a row? Oh damn, Morgan Wallen! (And his old album, released in January 2021, is still #9.)

https://www.billboard.com/charts/billboard-200/

[Mister Freeze]

Jack Black scores first "solo hit" thanks to joke scene in movie.
https://www.billboard.com/music/chart-b ... 235304748/

[ElectrickMagick]

Back in the day Billboard couldn't track what we were all listening to in real time. Sure, they could track radio and record sales, but once you bought a record they had no way of knowing if you were playing it everyday, or if it was collecting dust in an attic. Arguably when the Use Your Illusions albums were released, or when the Black album came out, people were listening to those records from front to back while in their cars, hanging out at home, or wherever else. They might have been played as much as a new Taylor Swift album, but we couldn't measure that stuff back then.

What makes the singles chart so different today is that a whole lot of people (this Gen-Xer included) who no longer buy records but simply stream everything. Nothing wrong with the streaming option, but it changes the equation for a singles chart, and turns that singles chart into something that's nothing like its predecessor. Comparing what Taylor has recently done to the Beatles is completely disingenuous because the criteria are so very different. Hell, if streaming had existed in 1971 Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin would have had ten songs on the Billboard Hot 100.

I think that it's cool the current chart tracks what is actually really popular, utilizing not just radio and streaming, but also TikTok and Instagram, but it's an entirely different thing from what it once was. It's not better, not worse, just very very different, and comparing eras is now pointless because the criteria are so radically different.

[CrankerBait]

Terrible singles for the past quarter century or so has ruined the Billboard singles charts. Streaming has made the problem worse, but good singles had already become few and far between before streaming.

[Zander Kelly]

I don't even know what's popular anymore nor do I give a shit. I like what I like and that's all that matters to me. Hell.... the majority of the shit on the charts I've never even heard of... but someone likes it so more power to them. As long as there are new and old bands cranking out the hard rock and metal, all is good in my world.

[Mister Freeze]

I know this thread is about singles, but let's talk about albums too. Metallica had the biggest-selling album of the week, but debuted at #2 because Morgan Wallen had more streaming activity.
https://www.billboard.com/music/chart-b ... 235313290/

I know Metallica's new material isn't exactly hot with the mainstream right now, but selling 134,000 physical copies in this day and age is pretty impressive.

[DemonFilth2001]

I know this thread is about singles, but let's talk about albums too. Metallica had the biggest-selling album of the week, but debuted at #2 because Morgan Wallen had more streaming activity.
https://www.billboard.com/music/chart-b ... 235313290/

I know Metallica's new material isn't exactly hot with the mainstream right now, but selling 134,000 physical copies in this day and age is pretty impressive.

Not only is Metallica on their own label...they also own the plant that presses the vinyl. These guys are making a ton.

[dmbrocker]

Now that it's all streaming, you'd think that Metallica would still be big enough that there would be a ton of metalheads and 'Tallica diehards streaming them enough time to get at least one of the songs from their new album to cross over to the Hot 100, but nope, not a single one.

[Nate S Axel]

It'll be interesting to see if Metallica has momentum to jump into #1 on the albums chart with that many albums sold. Some fans are pissed at Morgan Wallen cancelling the other night after the opening acts performed (announcing he "lost his voice" when he was shitfaced), and it's weird to see a "country" album atop the chart for that long, but... seven weeks later, Wallen still has 12(!) songs from the album in the Hot 100. On top of that, it has 3x the tracks that Metallica has (36 to 12), so that kind of gives an unfair advantage when it comes to streaming.

[DemonFilth2001]

It'll be interesting to see if Metallica has momentum to jump into #1 on the albums chart with that many albums sold. Some fans are pissed at Morgan Wallen cancelling the other night after the opening acts performed (announcing he "lost his voice" when he was shitfaced), and it's weird to see a "country" album atop the chart for that long, but... seven weeks later, Wallen still has 12(!) songs from the album in the Hot 100. On top of that, it has 3x the tracks that Metallica has (36 to 12), so that kind of gives an unfair advantage when it comes to streaming.

Never heard of this clown until recently. Is he some new redneck country fuck?

[Nate S Axel]

It'll be interesting to see if Metallica has momentum to jump into #1 on the albums chart with that many albums sold. Some fans are pissed at Morgan Wallen cancelling the other night after the opening acts performed (announcing he "lost his voice" when he was shitfaced), and it's weird to see a "country" album atop the chart for that long, but... seven weeks later, Wallen still has 12(!) songs from the album in the Hot 100. On top of that, it has 3x the tracks that Metallica has (36 to 12), so that kind of gives an unfair advantage when it comes to streaming.

"72 Seasons" falls from #2 to #14. Three new debut albums on the charts.
https://www.billboard.com/charts/billboard-200/

Never heard of this clown until recently. Is he some new redneck country fuck?

Eight weeks in a row at #1 on the Billboard 200, ahead of somebody named Agust D, two Taylor Swift albums, and YoungBoy Never Broke Again.
https://www.billboard.com/charts/billboard-200/

SZA's song jumped into the #1 spot on the Hot 100 last week, but "Last Night" took it back -- 13th week on the chart. One of five songs in the Top 25 and 11 in the Top 100.
https://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100/

[Mister Freeze]

Here it comes. It's not even December yet and "All I Want for Christmas is You" is already #17.
https://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100/

"Last Christmas" is #32.

The new Beatles song drops from #7 to #76 in Week 2.

And just like this time last year, Taylor Swift is #1.

[dmbrocker]

Well, I didn’t think it was possible, but Mariah has been officially dethroned by Brenda Lee as the queen of Christmas for a second straight week. Top four are still all Christmas tunes, with “Jingle Bell Rock” and Wham rounding out the last two. Closest non-seasonal song is hip-hop star Jack Harlow at #5 with “Lovin’ on Me”:

https://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100/

[DemonFilth2001]

Well, I didn’t think it was possible, but Mariah has been officially dethroned by Brenda Lee as the queen of Christmas for a second straight week. Top four are still all Christmas tunes, with “Jingle Bell Rock” and Wham rounding out the last two. Closest non-seasonal song is hip-hop star Jack Harlow at #5 with “Lovin’ on Me”:

https://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100/

Is Brenda Lee a country singer? Sounds like one of the artists Exitflagger pretends to like.

[Turner Coates]

Comparing what Taylor has recently done to the Beatles is completely disingenuous because the criteria are so very different. Hell, if streaming had existed in 1971 Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin would have had ten songs on the Billboard Hot 100.

The yardstick by which popularity is measured keeps changing.

Rather than comparing Taylor Swift's success to The Beatles, I compare it to someone like Peter Frampton's.
It's a phase people are going through. It was the same deal with Garth Brooks.
Swift's and Brooks' music will not have the lasting impact of artists such as The Beatles, with whom they are often compared.

[Wednesday 13 Fan]

Comparing what Taylor has recently done to the Beatles is completely disingenuous because the criteria are so very different. Hell, if streaming had existed in 1971 Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin would have had ten songs on the Billboard Hot 100.

The yardstick by which popularity is measured keeps changing.

Rather than comparing Taylor Swift's success to The Beatles, I compare it to someone like Peter Frampton's.
It's a phase people are going through. It was the same deal with Garth Brooks.
Swift's and Brooks' music will not have the lasting impact of artists such as The Beatles, with whom they are often compared.

Phases generally don't last nearly 20 years. Garth has been huge for well over 30 years.

[Turner Coates]

Phases generally don't last nearly 20 years. Garth has been huge for well over 30 years.

How many of his songs can people name compared to naming Beatles songs?
And who says phases don't last 20 years? The vinyl phase was longer than that. Currently, we're in a "streaming" phase.

[TooOldToCare]

In all the years I've been a music lover and mediocre musician, I have not given two shits about charts. Why would the consumer? You listen to what you desire then and now (now it's easier). I dug No Doubt's Tragic Kingdom, and the song Don't Speak. I never knew it didn't chart. Didn't matter to me. I listened until I moved on to something else. I never saved for CDs back in the day. I'd join BMG or Columbia House, get a dozen discs for a penny, cancel soon after, and then repeat.

[ElectrickMagick]

Comparing what Taylor has recently done to the Beatles is completely disingenuous because the criteria are so very different. Hell, if streaming had existed in 1971 Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin would have had ten songs on the Billboard Hot 100.

The yardstick by which popularity is measured keeps changing.

Rather than comparing Taylor Swift's success to The Beatles, I compare it to someone like Peter Frampton's.
It's a phase people are going through. It was the same deal with Garth Brooks.
Swift's and Brooks' music will not have the lasting impact of artists such as The Beatles, with whom they are often compared.

Peter Frampton? That's hilarious. Garth can still sell out any arena in the United States at the drop of the hat, by 1982 Frampton was back in theaters. There's nothing similar there at all.

And while I don't get Taylor Swift at all, she resonates with so many people, and I don't think that's likely to stop anytime soon, if ever. She's already been famous for twenty years, it's not like this is new, it's just bigger than it was, mostly because she appeals to an even wider audience than she did before.

But let's hear it for Brenda Lee! I think that she's on top of the charts is pretty amazing.

[Wednesday 13 Fan]

Phases generally don't last nearly 20 years. Garth has been huge for well over 30 years.

How many of his songs can people name compared to naming Beatles songs?
And who says phases don't last 20 years? The vinyl phase was longer than that. Currently, we're in a "streaming" phase.

Who cares? You live in a little hair metal bubble. Whether you want to live outside your closed off mind or not doesn't matter. Taylor Swift has been absolutely massive for damn near 20 years. Garth, even more so.

And you really don't know what a phase is, do you?

Here's the first definition, courtesy of Google. You don't even have to spell it correctly, so that isn't an excuse either.

1. a distinct period or stage in a series of events or a process of change or development.
"the final phases of the war"

[Wednesday 13 Fan]

And how many years has Swift out sold The Beatles? When was the last time a Beatles song or album sold more than what Swift has put out? Probably the early 2000s, before her record deal.

[Turner Coates]

WHOOSH!

[Lobo]

And how many years has Swift out sold The Beatles? When was the last time a Beatles song or album sold more than what Swift has put out? Probably the early 2000s, before her record deal.

The Beatles final album was released in 1970. That's more than 50 years ago. Half the band has been dead for decades. Harrison died just over 20 years ago, Lennon more than 40 years ago. Most of the fans that actually saw the band in person are dead or pretty damn near it.

I'll be dirt and dust by the time Taylor Swift's last recorded album reaches 50 years old. But I will say that The Beatles discography will still command a certain type of respect that Taylor Swift's never, ever will no matter what Entertainment Tonight and TMZ try and tell us.

The Beatles went from what is often termed as a "boy band" to making albums that were some of the most respected in the genre of rock music. Modern rock bands and artists that had already "made it" as legit and respected rock artists were covering Beatles songs off of albums that had just been released (i.e. Jimi Hendrix etc.)

Taylor Swift navigates a different terrain these days. The record business is completely different. The fact that she can actually sell physical copies is quite the feat. But...nobody will give a shit eventually. She doesn't make albums that are considered "masterpieces" but she does make albums that sell and sell well.