tasso hat geschrieben: ↑Do 16. Mai 2024, 23:45
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Album-equivalent_unit
"In Forbes, Hugh McIntyre noted that the usage of album equivalent units has resulted in artists releasing albums with excessive track lists.[28] Brian Josephs from Spin said: "If you're a thirsty (eager for fame or notoriety) pop artist of note, you can theoretically game the system by packing as many as 20 tracks into an album, in the process rolling up more album-equivalent units—and thus album "sales"—as listeners check the album out." He also criticized Chris Brown's album Heartbreak on a Full Moon, which contains over 40 songs.[29]
Und genau deswegen sind die Charts inzwischen Müll. Drake verkaufte von seinem neuesten Album 400K Album Equivalent Units und davon nur 10K physisch.
Also, erstmal. Drakes hier zitiertes Album kam 2018 raus. Davon unabhängig gilt heute folgendes:
„Under the revised methodology, the Official Charts Company takes the 12 most streamed tracks from one album, with the top-two songs being down-weighted in line with the average of the rest. The total of these streams is divided by 1000 and added to the pure sales of the album.“
—> Es spielt also keine (große) Rolle wie viele Tracks genau ein Album hat, da die Anzahl der maximal gewerteten Tracks immer identisch ist, unabhängig davon ob das Album 12, 15 oder 40 Songs beinhaltet. Infomieren hilft, wenn man schon etwas kritisieren möchte, ansonsten sind die „Argumente“ eben keine.
Darüber hinaus finde ich es faszinierend, dass Leute Streaming als Indikator für Popularität eines Songs oder Albums im Jahr 2024 weiter ablehnen, wenn man berücksichtigt, dass Taylor Swift Songs zig Millionen Mal in der gleichen Chartwoche gestreamt werden, in der „Dancing Star“ 2000 Kopien physisch verkauft… für genau eine Woche…an paar Hardcore Fans. Das hat mit „Popularität“ halt leider nichts zu tun. Populäre Songs werden auch von der Masse gestreamt, so einfach ist das. Die Masse kauft aber seit vielen Jahren nichts physisches mehr. Einzig Fans (so auch bei Taylor in Woche 1 als sie 190k physische Produkte verkaufte beispielsweise) greifen da noch zu. Der Unterschied ist, die wirklich populären Alben halten sich eben auch (länger) nach der ersten Woche (in der meist die physischen Verkäufe mit drin sind, so überhaupt angeboten) in den Charts
Zur generellen Thematik habe ich neulich im englischen Forum einen guten Beitrag gelesen, den ich hier gerne zitieren würde:
I don't think it's an exact science but I'm going to defend it - the number of eligible streams one person can make per day is capped at 10, which means you can't make more than 70 eligible streams a week - way below the equivalent of one single sale. If anything, I think that's unfair towards artists whose music is primarily if not entirely distributed through streaming, which is most of them. I think the limit of 1,000 may have been chosen as an estimate of the lifetime value of a physical purchase, though I'd say that number is far too high given very few copies sold will make it anywhere near that number of plays.
But like you say, the charts are and always have been intended as a measure of popularity. That meant simply counting copies sold in the days when there was no other way for the public to consume music. But now that's become essentially a niche way to listen to songs, it'd be mad for the charts to focus only on sales. Dancing Star being number one in the UK because of 2,000 copies would be preposterous.
I'd love to see PSB topping charts again as much as anyone, but that's only "fun" if it's done fairly and meaningfully. The race for the albums chart when Nonetheless came out was actually kind of exciting - it wouldn't have been if the rules were stacked against Taylor Swift such that the consumption patterns of her hundreds of thousands of fans were ignored. Like it or not, her album was more popular in that week than PSB's, just like Brothers In Arms and Bad were more popular in their respective weeks on top than Please and Actually. Getting to number 2 in that environment is a victory, not a defeat.
Firing verbal shots like a tommy gun.
Dort ging es von #3 ebenfalls auf die #19.
