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

[Mister Freeze]

[Hair I Go Again]

I'd argue that streaming ruined the album charts far more since streams are weighted much more heavily than sales. The singles charts used to be based on a mix of radio airplay (which is essentially bought and paid for) and sales (remember cassingles?), kind of like how the MTV Top 20 Countdown was advertised to be based on sales, requests and "MTV research" (whatever that meant). When digital became a thing, Nielsen started incorporating digital sales from iTunes and the like, which eventually led to streaming and the weird algorithms of today. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard ... cy_changes for more.)

Re: this week's singles chart, if the 10 most-listened-to songs in the country were all on the new Taylor Swift album, I'd say the chart is doing its job.

[Mister Freeze]

Re: this week's singles chart, if the 10 most-listened-to songs in the country were all on the new Taylor Swift album, I'd say the chart is doing its job.

It's supposed to measure how popular and relevant songs are with the general public. Not how aggressively an album has been listened to by those who already bought it (or have access to stream it for free). If the chart was "doing its job" the same way in 1988, the top-10 would be full of songs from Appetite For Destruction.

[MetalSludgeCEO]

But... is it only useless to YOU? Because of who it is, listed on that chart?

What if it were your favorite band... then would it be useless?

Things change... in the 80's there were NO computers, NO youtube, NO streaming, NO cell-phones, NO Metal Sludge, etc..

Things change... as the world does and will continue to do so.

Get over it.. the not in my backyard and old man syndrome way of thinking sucks.

$tEvil

[Mister Freeze]

But... is it only useless to YOU? Because of who it is, listed on that chart?

What if it were your favorite band... then would it be useless?

I said nothing of the sort.

I don't dislike Taylor Swift. (I'd actually rather listen to her new shit over the new shit from most of the bands we discuss on here.) But news reports are claiming she set some historic milestone when that doesn't tell the whole story. People sampling Taylor Swift's new album for free to see what it's like isn't quite the same as the Beatles having multiple songs in the top-10 back in 1964, is it?

And it has nothing to do with one act being "better" or "worse" than the other.

[JackieDaytona]

I agree with everybody here. Stevie is right in that old man thinking/get off my lawn is lame. But also, back in the day, if you had a #2 song on the Top 100 Billboard chart, that song was massive. Everybody knew it and we know those songs to this day. You couldn't escape it. Today, how many people will know or remember Lavender by Taylor Swift in 20/30 years time? How many common people have heard it? Or any of the other top 10 songs? Lots of fucking people, I know, but it's just a different world. We also had MTV in the 80s playing those songs on a loop and drilling them into our heads. There was less distractions so the impact was more.

I actually think it's awesome Taylor has all the top 10 songs. That's pretty historic no matter how to want to slice it. I hope she eventually beats all of Madonna's records.

[MetalSludgeCEO]

But... is it only useless to YOU? Because of who it is, listed on that chart?

What if it were your favorite band... then would it be useless?

I said nothing of the sort.

I don't dislike Taylor Swift. (I'd actually rather listen to her new shit over the new shit from most of the bands we discuss on here.) But news reports are claiming she set some historic milestone when that doesn't tell the whole story. People sampling Taylor Swift's new album for free to see what it's like isn't quite the same as the Beatles having multiple songs in the top-10 back in 1964, is it?

And it has nothing to do with one act being "better" or "worse" than the other.

"""""""I said nothing of the sort.""""""

Please pay attention to the WORDS.

Just to be clear, I never "said" you "said" anything of the sort.

I actually asked a few questions... to be clear.

"""""But... is it only useless to YOU? Because of who it is, listed on that chart?

What if it were your favorite band... then would it be useless?"""""""

Try to keep up.

$tEvil

[Mister Freeze]

Your questions (as suggestive as they were) were asked and answered. Maybe you should try to keep up Stevil?

[MetalSludgeCEO]

Your questions (as suggestive as they were) were asked and answered. Maybe you should try to keep up Stevil?

How cold... and fitting Mister Freeze.

$tEvil

[rockker]

Streaming is the best thing and worst thing to happen to music.

I can pretty much access anything at anytime. At my age (44) it is amazing to think about especially when I think about how I’d have to save my money for that one album to buy as a teenager and now everything is at my fingertips always.

The downside is music has become so disposable. The general public doesn’t seem to value it like like it once was. Youth don’t sit in their bedroom savouring every track and album cut for weeks because they can’t afford to get the next release. There doesn’t seem to be the connection like there once was unless you work at it…

[Wednesday 13 Fan]

It always was pointless.

Most of those charts were bought and paid for, and had been for decades.

[dmbrocker]

It always was pointless.

Most of those charts were bought and paid for, and had been for decades.

So G’n’R bought their way to the top of the charts with “Sweet Child O’ Mine”? And Roxette with their hits? And Madonna? Or was the music just that good? I’m leaning toward the latter, my good sir.

[dmbrocker]

Also, I wouldn’t worry too much about T-Swift’s new album clogging up the charts. Give it a good week or so and half of those songs will be dropping down the charts once the fans decide which ones are worth the most listens. Can’t possibly be all of ‘em for that long. That said, “Anti-Hero” is actually an alright tune. Better than bro country by a good billion miles, anyway.

[Wednesday 13 Fan]

It always was pointless.

Most of those charts were bought and paid for, and had been for decades.

So G’n’R bought their way to the top of the charts with “Sweet Child O’ Mine”? And Roxette with their hits? And Madonna? Or was the music just that good? I’m leaning toward the latter, my good sir.

Stop reading things wrong. Where did I say that?

[Wednesday 13 Fan]

It always was pointless.

Most of those charts were bought and paid for, and had been for decades.

So G’n’R bought their way to the top of the charts with “Sweet Child O’ Mine”? And Roxette with their hits? And Madonna? Or was the music just that good? I’m leaning toward the latter, my good sir.

And for the record, various companies in the music industry have paid tens of millions of dollars in fines in the 2000s alone.

[dmbrocker]

It always was pointless.

Most of those charts were bought and paid for, and had been for decades.

So G’n’R bought their way to the top of the charts with “Sweet Child O’ Mine”? And Roxette with their hits? And Madonna? Or was the music just that good? I’m leaning toward the latter, my good sir.

Stop reading things wrong. Where did I say that?

“Most of those charts were bought and paid for, and had been for decades.” Could you clarify what you meant by that, then?

[DangerZone]

The Buggles should write a new song, “Streaming Killed the Billboard Charts”

[Wednesday 13 Fan]

So G’n’R bought their way to the top of the charts with “Sweet Child O’ Mine”? And Roxette with their hits? And Madonna? Or was the music just that good? I’m leaning toward the latter, my good sir.

Stop reading things wrong. Where did I say that?

“Most of those charts were bought and paid for, and had been for decades.” Could you clarify what you meant by that, then?

Record companies paying to have songs played on the radio.

Funnily enough, if it is announced that the radio station was paid to play something, it's perfectly legal.

[Wednesday 13 Fan]

So G’n’R bought their way to the top of the charts with “Sweet Child O’ Mine”? And Roxette with their hits? And Madonna? Or was the music just that good? I’m leaning toward the latter, my good sir.

Stop reading things wrong. Where did I say that?

“Most of those charts were bought and paid for, and had been for decades.” Could you clarify what you meant by that, then?

Here's just one example.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110522014 ... ment_.html

[itdoesntmatter]

In the mid-'90s to early '00s (for the most part), the singles charts NEVER reflected the reality of the most popular current songs as far as what was most played on the radio and TV and listened to by the masses. Because there is always some peculiar aspect(s) to the chart methodology.

Remember when there was no commercially sold single so the most popular songs didn't chart at all? The generally accepted business reason was that labels were pushing the sale of full CD albums. So why put out a single for $1-4ish when you could sell a $15-19 album with 1 popular song and (often) a lot of filler. Of course, this still applied to albums with 5-6 hit singles.

For example (and I can think of many others), "Don't Speak" by No Doubt was #1 in radio airplay for 16 weeks and was constantly on MTV and VH1, but never charted as a single.

Sometimes, in a rush to capitalize on a song's popularity. the label would release a limited under the radar single (sometimes even just a limited vinyl run) so technically the song could chart. Also, you have to take into account the way different formats have been segregated and counted, so for example a #1 RnB (or "black" song as they were called at one point) song wouldn't "crossover" and chart but most regular white people who weren't hermits would know the song. Same for rock radio and so on.

But then, (legal) downloads and then streaming came along, so almost everything became "commercially available" and the methodology has continued to be tweaked to what they considered more accurate of modern music consumption.

So, you could argue that the singles charts have rarely given a good picture to what the most popular singles were at the time.

I think that ALBUMS suffer a lot more, because it's possible for a release from an act that doesn't do huge streaming and generally a non-pop act to chart very high on ALBUMS SOLD or physical album sales in a given week and not even chart on the BB200.

[dmbrocker]

Stop reading things wrong. Where did I say that?

“Most of those charts were bought and paid for, and had been for decades.” Could you clarify what you meant by that, then?

Here's just one example.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110522014 ... ment_.html

Why the fraud? The music was good enough on its own to become big on the charts. Is this saying that Madonna (for example) wouldn’t have made it big on talent alone? Weren’t most of the artists back then good enough to make it? I know record label promotion was a big part of it, but this was kind of carrying it too far, wasn’t it?

[pieceofme]

Former poster Bluetrain is delighted with this news. And if he was still here would post a response with a dozen emojis.


And Mister Freeze is spot on with his comments on the topic.

[Nate S Axel]

Streaming is the best thing and worst thing to happen to music.

I can pretty much access anything at anytime. At my age (44) it is amazing to think about especially when I think about how I’d have to save my money for that one album to buy as a teenager and now everything is at my fingertips always.

The downside is music has become so disposable. The general public doesn’t seem to value it like like it once was. Youth don’t sit in their bedroom savouring every track and album cut for weeks because they can’t afford to get the next release. There doesn’t seem to be the connection like there once was unless you work at it…

We're spoiled today with the ease and number of options we have when it comes to music, but for those that (still) love music and discovering a new band or new song to obsessively play for days or weeks, it's a good thing.

Yeah, it's a different feeling compared to when you'd go to your favorite music store and hope some album was in stock or not sold out, and read the lyrics in the album insert to every song, compared to a couple of clicks on Spotify or Apple Music now, and a quick listen to a song to figure out if it sucks or not now. Or buying an entire album that ends up being a letdown, compared to now being able to listen to each track and only buy (or add to your playlist) the ones you like.

I still have a few CDs saved somewhere, not a big collection, but a few autographed albums from favorite bands in the past. I don't even have a way to listen to them anymore if I wanted to, since I have no CD player at home, on my computer or laptop, or in any vehicle I use. Sometimes there's that nostalgia remembering how cool it was to listen to the same CD on the way to/from class every day, but that was then.

It is what it is. They say that new music discovery stops at 33 (https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/ta ... says-study), but I've discovered more new music at 40 ("new" new or older stuff I missed before) than ever before. Every few days I'll stumble onto a track that gets added to the playlist for the day/week.

It's so easy to start with a favorite band and just randomly browse in Apple Music, Spotify, LastFM or whatever of "similar bands" or songs I've never heard of before. Most of them aren't that memorable, but every so often, BAM... it hits you and now you have a new obsession for awhile.

It kind of blows my mind when somebody on here gets "bored" with music or cries that there's nothing good anymore. Fuck that. It's so damn easy to find something you might like or missed the first time.

I doubt I'll listen to Taylor Swift's new album anytime soon, but good for her and everybody streaming it. It's a cool record to have... until somebody breaks it again.

[dmbrocker]

Welp, I called it - already one week later and all but the lead single have dropped down the charts:

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

[Mister Freeze]

Welp, I called it - already one week later and all but the lead single have dropped down the charts:

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

Oh, look. More chart lameness. Michael Jackson's "Thriller" is #26 and Ray Parker Jr.'s "Ghostbusters" is #49 because people were playing those songs at Halloween parties.

[dmbrocker]

Welp, I called it - already one week later and all but the lead single have dropped down the charts:

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

Oh, look. More chart lameness. Michael Jackson's "Thriller" is #26 and Ray Parker Jr.'s "Ghostbusters" is #49 because people were playing those songs at Halloween parties.

I noticed that and figured that was the case. Expect “All I Want For Christmas Is You” to be #1 again come December.

[Mister Freeze]

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

And endless news stories about the "historic achievement."

[dmbrocker]

Hoo boy! Now it's Drake and 21 Savage's turn to clog up the charts with everyone streaming their new joint collaboration album! I'm a li'l surprised that Taylor Swift still managed to keep the number one spot:

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

[dmbrocker]

And as expected, half of the top 40 this week is Christmas songs because everybody's listening to Christmas music now! Just great.

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

[Mister Freeze]

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"