"I Want You Back" has surpassed 1 billion streams

[MonkeyCheater]

I think it's stupid to start counting Spotify, YouTube, &, etc numbers from 60-70-year-old songs. No, telling how many numbers it would've had in '69 til today & hell of Michael's alone it would've been intense. It's a lot of fans who have passed on as well. Think about all his world tours & if they had social media way back when & after people were leaving the show how much he would stream. So this is by far just dumb to me to recount something that has been worldwide massive because of new tech.

Why is it stupid to consider streaming numbers for older songs?

Streaming stats clearly tell us which older songs have stood the test of time, are crossing over to a younger generation….

 

[Maxym]

Some people who had records/tapes/CDs/DVDs etc. got rid of it for streaming (...)

What you say makes me feel like I'm one of the only weird people who actually keeps a physical collection AND a digital copy of it all, as a backup and for listening.

But this whole discussion keeps going round with everyone doing things differently which would validate or invalidate any way of looking at numbers.

 

[DuranDuran]

What you say makes me feel like I'm one of the only weird people who actually keeps a physical collection AND a digital copy of it all, as a backup and for listening.

But this whole discussion keeps going round with everyone doing things differently which would validate or invalidate any way of looking at numbers.

You can't really judge popularity today from physical sales. That started to go down when Napster came around. Other than a few like Taylor Swift & Adele, most artists don't sell that much in CDs/records/tapes. Drake is the artist with the most Hot 100 entries, but he's not really much of a physical product seller. Some boomer era classic rock artists still sell somewhat like The Beatles & Pink Floyd.

 

[Maxym]

I'm really tired of this thread with everyone talking for themselves, often quoting my posts mostly misinterpreting what I said in the first place (but maybe I should have written a complete thesis from the start), and repeating untestable truths that everyone already more or less agrees on...

 

[kai]

Not just the younger generation, lol. I also like it! Sure, the whole streaming thing seems kinda weird and artificial to me and doesn't make much sense compared to physical media (which I grew up with). Otoh, I do love it when a Michael song does well in the digital age. It was brilliant when, two years ago, HCW and Chicago blew up on Tik Tok. They just came out of nowhere and the trending did have an effect on streaming figures. Which was fab, imo!

I see what you're saying. The downside to these "mass-streaming projects" and I've seen it happen multiple times last year—is the message they send to the estate. Essentially, it tells them: "Hey, you don’t have to do anything. We’ll rack up a billion streams for you no matter what. And you’ll keep making money without releasing anything new for us. You are literally feeding the estates pockets (with money) and they can lean back.

And i really think the opposite should be the case. The fans should say "Um, no we don't support you anymore until you support us".

 

[R1chard]

It is very impressive

What can I say. You're easily impressed, I guess.

There's plenty of occasions when a song used to top the sales charts after it was used in a Levis ad or whatever.

They just came out of nowhere and the trending did have an effect on streaming figures. Which was fab, imo!

But why? I simply don't understand your excitement. It doesn't mean anything. Do you find it fab when Pepsi has a month of good sales? How about if your local electricity company makes a profit?

Again, you don't get any benefit for a song being at the top of one of these made-up lists.

Maybe I got this wrong - maybe you've invested significant money into one of these catalogues, and the fund is paying you regular dividends or something.

 

[DuranDuran]

But why? I simply don't understand your excitement. It doesn't mean anything. Do you find it fab when Pepsi has a month of good sales? How about if your local electricity company makes a profit?

Again, you don't get any benefit for a song being at the top of one of these made-up lists.

Maybe I got this wrong - maybe you've invested significant money into one of these catalogues, and the fund is paying you regular dividends or something.

Why do you care about the audiophile sound that you're always talking about? Do you have money invested in Monster cable, MoFi Records, or McIntosh stereo equipment? If no one was interested in this, magazines like Billboard & Rolling Stone would not have existed in the first place or Nielson ratings for TV shows or Box Office Mojo for movies. Casey Kasem used to have a radio & TV show about the music charts. It's no different from people buying baseball cards with statistics on the back or debate about their favorite sports teams/athletes. It's a reason things like the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame exists or why a lot of folks care about who gets inducted or not. Fans pay celebrities money to get an autograph or take a picture with them at meet & greets or Comic Cons.

Michael Jackson himself cared about selling the most and having hits. It's been said that Mike kept track of the charts in different countries to see what's popular. He had no money invested in whatever was popular in Hong Kong or Nigeria.

 

[DuranDuran]

And i really think the opposite should be the case. The fans should say "Um, no we don't support you anymore until you support us".

Only hardcore fans care about unreleased music, which is a small percentage of people. The general public mainly cares about radio hits. That's how Motown can release endless different compilations with the same songs or why old Christmas songs are still popular. Hits is where the money is. When an advertising agency or movie/TV studio wants to use old music, most of the time it will be some hit that a lot of people know about. If you listen to oldies or classic rock radio, they play the same 4 or 5 songs by the same artists over and over. Even if a particular artist had more popular songs than that. With music reaction videos, most are reacting to old hits, because that is what is generally requested, If they react to an album track or lesser known artist or a song that didn't crossover to Top 40, those videos don't get as many views.

 

[zinniabooklover]

I see what you're saying. The downside to these "mass-streaming projects" and I've seen it happen multiple times last year—is the message they send to the estate. Essentially, it tells them: "Hey, you don’t have to do anything. We’ll rack up a billion streams for you no matter what. And you’ll keep making money without releasing anything new for us.

Fair point.

You are literally feeding the estates pockets (with money) and they can lean back.

I don't stream anything, ever. All my music is on CD. T40 is the only posthumous thing I've bought.

And i really think the opposite should be the case. The fans should say "Um, no we don't support you anymore until you support us".

I definitely think MJE could easily release projects that are of more interest to Michael's fanbase alongside other stuff that is aimed more at a mainstream, general audience. The bottom line is always money - which is fine - but it doesn't have to be so for every single project. But they don't seem to want to do that so I don't even think about it anymore. Feels like a waste of time so I don't bother.

 

[zinniabooklover]

But why? I simply don't understand your excitement.

But you don't have to understand my excitement (actually, 'excitement' is putting it a bit strong. I'm pleased, not sure if I'm definitely 'excited').

Anyway, point is, I like the fact that Michael's music still gets attention - even if the whole streaming thing is a bit artificial and doesn't, ultimately, make much sense to me since I am a product of the physical media era. Digital is too nebulous for me. But here we are and Michael is still making a mark. Why wouldn't I be pleased about that? It's lovely that Michael's music hasn't fallen into oblivion.

It doesn't mean anything.

Of course it doesn't but it does add to the gaiety of life. Besides, if it's so meaningless, why get so agitated about it? If other people find it pleasing you could just let them get on with it. Why question it?

Do you find it fab when Pepsi has a month of good sales? How about if your local electricity company makes a profit?

Don't be silly! No-one gives a toss about that stuff. People don't have emotional connections to caffeinated drinks or whatever. Unless they are shareholders, lol.

Again, you don't get any benefit for a song being at the top of one of these made-up lists.

No-one claimed any benefit. Did I get any benefit when a song I liked was at No.1 back in the day? Not really but it was fun.

I'll say it again, it adds to the gaiety of life. A lot of the music I grew up with doesn't make much (or any) dent in the streaming stats. Michael does and I like that. What's so hard to understand?

Maybe I got this wrong

Well, I don't stream anything. Music, tv, nothing. Never havedone, got no plans to ever join in. So, sure, ultimately, streaming is meaningless in my life. Long may it continue! But I'm always going to be pleased that Michael can make a significant dent in the streaming figures.

- maybe you've invested significant money into one of these catalogues, and the fund is paying you regular dividends or something.

Don't be ridiculous!

We might be talking at cross purposes bc I genuinely don't understand any of these points you're making. It's really not a big deal. It's really nice that IWYB is now in the Billion Club. But if it doesn't interest you, that's fine. Just let it be.

 

[zinniabooklover]

I don't understand the convo in this thread so I'm bowing out

... and leaving this

https://twitter.com/x/status/1388877948242038784