|
Post by Q3 on Nov 20, 2014 9:38:21 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/business/media/billboard-changing-the-charts-will-count-streaming-services-.html?src=twr&_r=3Billboard, Changing the Charts, Will Count Streaming Services By BEN SISARIONOV. 19, 2014 Streaming music services like Spotify have brought big changes to the music industry. But one important part of the business has not kept up: Billboard’s album chart. Now Billboard and Nielsen SoundScan, the agency that supplies its data, will start adding streams and downloads of tracks to the formula behind the Billboard 200, which, since 1956 has functioned as the music world’s weekly scorecard. It is the biggest change since 1991, when the magazine began using hard sales data from SoundScan, a revolutionary change in a music industry that had long based its charts on highly fudgeable surveys of record stores. Click link to read more. This is great news! And will punish artists like Taylor Swift who pull their music from the streaming media services in an attempt to maximize album sales. (Does not seem to work based on this one high profile case -- there are not many examples to look at.) But the idea that Soundscan is "fudgeable" is pretty ridiculous since there are almost no independent record stores left and over 90% of retail music sales are electronic transactions which are difficult to "fudge".ETA: I edited this because I misread the article.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 10:17:33 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/business/media/billboard-changing-the-charts-will-count-streaming-services-.html?src=twr&_r=3Billboard, Changing the Charts, Will Count Streaming Services By BEN SISARIONOV. 19, 2014 Streaming music services like Spotify have brought big changes to the music industry. But one important part of the business has not kept up: Billboard’s album chart. Now Billboard and Nielsen SoundScan, the agency that supplies its data, will start adding streams and downloads of tracks to the formula behind the Billboard 200, which, since 1956 has functioned as the music world’s weekly scorecard. It is the biggest change since 1991, when the magazine began using hard sales data from SoundScan, a revolutionary change in a music industry that had long based its charts on highly fudgeable surveys of record stores. Click link to read more. This is great news! And will punish artists like Taylor Swift who pull their music from the streaming media services in an attempt to maximize album sales. (Does not seem to work based on this one high profile case -- there are not many examples to look at.) But the idea that Soundscan is "fudgeable" is pretty ridiculous since there are almost no independent record stores left and over 90% of retail music sales are electronic transactions which are difficult to "fudge". two questions: Do you think artists who expect to be compensated for their art should be punished? (btw, as stated in the article, no amount of streaming or lack thereof, would keep Taylor from being #1 on the BB200...the girl is a beast in terms of sales and popularity with fans) and how can you say "does not seem to work" in terms of sales of Taylor's album when she sold 1.2 million copies the first week? for accuracy, Taylor pulled her entire catalog off Spotify one week after the release of 1989 (which was never made available) and she did so because artists get paid little to nothing in royalties for their music being streamed (something like $.0005 per stream). Streaming is doing to digital downloads what digital downloads did to CD sales...killing it. Digital sales are down almost 14% from last year and CD sales are down even more. Streaming is great for people who want free music but really crappy for the people who make the music and who deserve to get paid for it. Personally, I use Spotify with a paid subscription but I used the free version for months before signing up which means I listened to the music for free and the artists got nothing from me. I suspect more people use the free version than the paid subscription version, which is the complaint from artists like Taylor Swift and many others. Music is art and the artists making it should be compensated. Imagine a streaming movie site that allowed people to watch movies for free...the movie industry would shit a brick.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 10:21:10 GMT -5
Interesting Twitter exchange from Shoshanna
|
|
|
Post by wal on Nov 20, 2014 10:43:57 GMT -5
ShowMustGoOn @alalwayz 25m Happy tears! Adam Lambert on huge screens at United Nations #Imagine #Unicef
|
|
|
Post by nica575 on Nov 20, 2014 10:44:13 GMT -5
Interesting Twitter exchange from Shoshanna YAY! AWESOME response from Shosh! I am 100% sure (i.e. it's my conviction, not factual knowledge) Adam is firmly in the driver seat of his career. I am also sure he is getting tons of project proposals and he is very careful allotting his time, his voice and his name. I used to worry about his career, especially right after NCOE came out as a single (THAT was tragic IMO), but the last two years changed my perception completely. I unconditionally believe in him now. (sounds pompous, i know...)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 10:48:17 GMT -5
Q3, I think you read that Soundscan comparison too fast. They are saying Soundscan is "hard sales number". Before Soundscan, surveying record stores was used & that was the practice that was fudgeable!
|
|
|
Post by lelemaple on Nov 20, 2014 10:49:32 GMT -5
I just realized that over the past few weeks, Brian was part of the Beach Boys remake, Roger was part of the Band Aid remake, and Adam was part of the John Lennon remake. Great minds think alike.
|
|
|
Post by Q3 on Nov 20, 2014 10:50:19 GMT -5
This is great news! And will punish artists like Taylor Swift who pull their music from the streaming media services in an attempt to maximize album sales. (Does not seem to work based on this one high profile case -- there are not many examples to look at.) But the idea that Soundscan is "fudgeable" is pretty ridiculous since there are almost no independent record stores left and over 90% of retail music sales are electronic transactions which are difficult to "fudge". two questions: Do you think artists who expect to be compensated for their art should be punished? (btw, as stated in the article, no amount of streaming or lack thereof, would keep Taylor from being #1 on the BB200...the girl is a beast in terms of sales and popularity with fans) and how can you say "does not seem to work" in terms of sales of Taylor's album when she sold 1.2 million copies the first week? for accuracy, Taylor pulled her entire catalog off Spotify one week after the release of 1989 (which was never made available) and she did so because artists get paid little to nothing in royalties for their music being streamed (something like $.0005 per stream). Streaming is doing to digital downloads what digital downloads did to CD sales...killing it. Digital sales are down almost 14% from last year and CD sales are down even more. Streaming is great for people who want free music but really crappy for the people who make the music and who deserve to get paid for it. Personally, I use Spotify with a paid subscription but I used the free version for months before signing up which means I listened to the music for free and the artists got nothing from me. I suspect more people use the free version than the paid subscription version, which is the complaint from artists like Taylor Swift and many others. Music is art and the artists making it should be compensated. Imagine a streaming movie site that allowed people to watch movies for free...the movie industry would shit a brick. Q1: Do you think artists who expect to be compensated for their art should be punished? (btw, as stated in the article, no amount of streaming or lack thereof, would keep Taylor from being #1 on the BB200...the girl is a beast in terms of sales and popularity with fans)I mention Taylor because while so many artists are starving, she was complaining about not making enough money -- her statement that she would have outsold Bruce Springstein's Born in the USA sort of offended me by being arrogant. I listen to radio for free -- and Taylor + her label essentially pay to be on the radio. My household pays $20 a month for Spotify. Taylor's label gets a ton of money from Spotify ($6 million). In her case, she owns part of her label so I have no sympathy for the stuff she says about not getting any money. Many artists have contracts that do not adequately account for streaming media revenues. No matter what, the model is shifting to a streaming model and people are willing to pay for the streaming media. If the music industry does not adjust, they will die. The music industry will adjust. >> Spotify pays the artists when you stream if you are a free subscriber or a paid subscriber -- does not matter for the artist. Spotify makes their money from ads and subscriptions. Taylor would have been #1 with or without it BUT there was no chart consequence of not streaming your music -- and if an artist was hugely popular with streams, they were getting no credit. This was really hurting urban, rock and alt rock artists. In the meantime, classic era artists with very old fans were charting higher because they were still selling albums at a high rate. (People over 65 still prefer to buy CD's and whole albums.) *** The bigger question are album sales a meaningful measure of popularity in 2014 -- and as they become less and less important to the industry Billboard needs to build new measures of popularity.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 10:50:28 GMT -5
I just realized that over the past few weeks, Brian was part of the Beach Boys remake, Roger was part of the Band Aid remake, and Adam was part of the John Lennon remake. Great minds think alike. They are in demand!!
|
|
|
Post by wal on Nov 20, 2014 10:50:39 GMT -5
EntertainmentWise @entwise 37m .@katyperry, @nicolescherzy & @adamlambert are just 3 of the many stars on this charity single bit.ly/1r0ExlJBY SHAUN KITCHENER ON NOVEMBER 20, 2014 Watch A Load Of A-Listers Covering 'Imagine' For UNICEFLooks like you can get involved as well It's like one big game of Spot The A-Lister as Katy Perry, Nicole Scherzinger, Adam Lambert and even Courteney Cox lend their voices to a cover of John Lennon's 'Imagine' for a new campaign from UNICEF. Cody Simpson, will.i.am, Danny O’Donoghue and Idris Elba are also involved, with stars taking turns to sing individual lines; either as a solo, in pairs or in larger groups. With a new Peace Collective sing-song due in December and Band Aid 30 poised to go to No1 this weekend, 'tis clearly the season for charity super-collabs. This particular initiative, which also features Rumer Willis and Priyanka Chopra, is essentially aiming to become the biggest sing-a-long in history, with members of the public invited to submit their own contributions by way of the free TouchCast app and become part of the finished product themselves. Once an avalanche of contributions have been received, responsibility will then fall on David Guetta to create a new master remix; set for release on New Year’s Eve 2014 to cement the 25th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The DJ has vowed to include EVERYONE who sends in a line... even if that includes millions and millions of entries. He said in a statement: "I’m really excited to be working with UNICEF on this incredible new project. Our ‘world’ version of Imagine will be like no other – I am proud to be a part of this collaboration. We have to get the word out that every voice counts and every child counts too.” Craig David, David Arquette, Taye Diggs, Dianna Agron, Suki Waterhouse and even UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon are in the ‘master’ version, which has received Yoko Ono's full support. Footage from her original video with Lennon himself is intertwined with the stars' vocals. Watch below. Link to YT
|
|