Latest on MJJC

Post malone crushes record held by michael jackson for 34 years

Re: streaming

Nite Line said:
That's all fine and good. We all know that the way people consume music is a lot different now to what it was in the 80s. That's why we shouldn't combine pre streaming and streaming achievements.
Click to expand...
That can be said about anything, like pre-Soundscan & post Soundscan, or the album era to the era of the 78s when there was no albums. Pre-Soundscan, only 6 albums debuted at #1 (in the USA), and 2 of them were by Elton John. Post-Soundscan, it happened all the time. The record clubs (12 albums for a penny!) were not counted as official sales (for the RIAA) or for Billboard chart criteria. So artists didn't really make money from them. Some used record stores would not accept record club stuff either, they had a different barcode from the official albums from the record labels and also the club name printed on the record cover. Pre-1970s, the average act released 2 or 3 albums a year and in some cases non-album singles in addition to that, because that's what labels required then. Thriller's sales would not have happened if it was released in the 1960s. One man band albums like Prince couldn't have happened pre-1970s either, because it was impossible with the studio technology then. A lot of The Beatles sales happened after they broke up, not while they were an active group. Especially when the albums were re-released on CD in the late 1980s, and several times after that. Baby boomers bought them multiple times and other records like Dark Side Of The Moon by Pink Floyd. So you could say the blockbuster album era starting in the mid 1970s shouldn't be compared to the 1960s and before. But it is. Should today's era of 600 cable/sattelite TV channels be compared to when it was only the 3 networks and more people watched the same thing and there was no remote control?
 
It's a totally different metric system.. we all know it would be very different if it weren't the case
 
Re: streaming

DuranDuran said:
That can be said about anything, like pre-Soundscan & post Soundscan, or the album era to the era of the 78s when there was no albums. Pre-Soundscan, only 6 albums debuted at #1 (in the USA), and 2 of them were by Elton John. Post-Soundscan, it happened all the time. The record clubs (12 albums for a penny!) were not counted as official sales (for the RIAA) or for Billboard chart criteria. So artists didn't really make money from them. Some used record stores would not accept record club stuff either, they had a different barcode from the official albums from the record labels and also the club name printed on the record cover. Pre-1970s, the average act released 2 or 3 albums a year and in some cases non-album singles in addition to that, because that's what labels required then. Thriller's sales would not have happened if it was released in the 1960s. One man band albums like Prince couldn't have happened pre-1970s either, because it was impossible with the studio technology then. A lot of The Beatles sales happened after they broke up, not while they were an active group. Especially when the albums were re-released on CD in the late 1980s, and several times after that. Baby boomers bought them multiple times and other records like Dark Side Of The Moon by Pink Floyd. So you could say the blockbuster album era starting in the mid 1970s shouldn't be compared to the 1960s and before. But it is. Should today's era of 600 cable/sattelite TV channels be compared to when it was only the 3 networks and more people watched the same thing and there was no remote control?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do believe that achievements between different eras shouldn't be compared. Is it fair that due to streaming, a big artist like Drake can literally have all of the songs from his new album in the top 10/20? In MJ's era, only songs that were officially released as singles were able to chart. It was a big achievement having 5 top 10 hits of an album. Now not so much. That's why it makes me so mad when MJ's records get broken. Because Michael earned his records the HARD way.
 
Re: streaming

Nite Line said:
Yes, I do believe that achievements between different eras shouldn't be compared. Is it fair that due to streaming, a big artist like Drake can literally have all of the songs from his new album in the top 10/20? In MJ's era, only songs that were officially released as singles were able to chart. It was a big achievement having 5 top 10 hits of an album. Now not so much. That's why it makes me so mad when MJ's records get broken. Because Michael earned his records the HARD way.
Click to expand...
They're not just breaking Mike's records but ones by The Beatles & Elvis Presley and for female artists Nicki Minaj broke Aretha Franklin's record. Drake, Lil Wayne, & the Glee cast has more Hot 100 entries than anyone, when Elvis had the record for decades. Lil Wayne's main popularity came in the digital download era, not the streaming era. CDs were still selling a lot too. Like Eminem & Nelly actually went diamond with CD sales.
 
Re: streaming

I think the problem is that when someone streams a album, the individual songs that are played are considered a individual stream. And do they are added to the singles chart records. The fact that a whole album is on the singles chart is just telling us that loads of people are listening to his album on the first week of release.

Adding streams has completely messed up the chart records.

But todays artists cannot win. YouTube and Spotify have destroyed the incentive to buy music (especially for those with tight budgets).
 
^ yeah the algorithm is too messed up to compare.. there is no way to find a perfect comparison
 
KOPV said:
Bollywood, it starting to seem like you havent heard much modern mainstream music. Idk what telling people who you dont know proves..
Click to expand...

No I haven't. Since I don't listen to the radio anymore. It's probably been 10 or 15 years since I last listen to the radio. And ever since what happen to Michael. I had stopped watching those American celebrity entertainment news programs. The same goes for any of those music award shows. I also don't watch any of the music channels. Because of those reasons I wouldn't know who the latest singers are. And back when we still had him. I used to know all of the time who the latest singers are. Because I used watch the celebrity news programs. And watch channels like MTV. Now ever since what happen to him. I just don't bother with any of that anymore.:( :boohoo
 
He's a newer artist, is pretty popular in the US but has not been a house hold name for a while.. Here he's on the level where most of the younger generation know him. 30's and under while if I were to ask my mom who he is.. she would not know.

Just to give perspective!
 
KOPV said:
He's a newer artist, is pretty popular in the US but has not been a house hold name for a while.. Here he's on the level where most of the younger generation know him. 30's and under while if I were to ask my mom who he is.. she would not know.

Just to give perspective!
Click to expand...

I'm under 30 and from Asia and this is the first time I've heard of him.
 
^ I figured that. That's why I said in the US!
 
From the US, 22 years old, and Post Malone is everywhere in my world but I don't listen to his stuff, not a fan of his persona.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top