2010 Magazine's Albums Of The Year Thread For Posting Lists and Discussion

the bungling of gucci's career by major labels is a perfect example to me of sales not actually representing the potential popular energy of an artist. he gave away tons of free music! how do you incorporate that into a major label record sales model?

'a large' percentage, meaning what exactly? a much smaller one than was the case a decade ago surely. i know we like to think indie took over in the past couple of yrs but you guys cant seriously think that arcade fire or w/e are even in the same world of popularity as like idk semisonic

― lyrics is weak ... like clock radio similes (deej), Monday, December 27, 2010 3:49 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Semisonic is a pretty weird example, dude. sure they have one song everyone knows, but virtually no other songs that are remotely as popular, and they had one album go platinum on the strength of that song at a time when it was really easy to go platinum. I'd say a nominal 'indie' band that's had a couple top 5 Billboard debuts and is a decent-sized concert draw is in some ways more popular than Semisonic ever were.

what is a 'decent sized concert draw' -- idk then, what about like weezer or something. is that comparable to arcade fire's level of fame?

Also, Arcade Fire has been on SNL twice, Semisonic never was, I think that certainly says something about relative levels of popularity.

Not sure how much, but Lorne Michaels isn't know for booking no-names these days.

"known"

i think youre arcade fire fans are more likely to pay for records than your soulja boy fans. is arcade fire more popular than soulja boy?

I'd never even heard of that song until I saw deej rep for it so much on ILM. xxxxp

Also, Arcade Fire has been on SNL twice, Semisonic never was, I think that certainly says something about relative levels of popularity.

― one pretty obvious guy in the obvious (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Monday, December 27, 2010 3:13 PM (45 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

LOL

Oh, so you can randomly pick and choose which yardsticks fit your worldview but no one else can?

haha i was repping for semisonic?? i doubt it. maybe i defended it halfheartedly at one pt? my sister had that cd, along with Fastball & matchbox 20 (Maybe thats the band i should be comparing arcade fire with ... i bet you there's no WAY arcade fire are at matchbox 20 levels ... that dude even had a minor solo career!)

I mean, ffs, you are still whining about Gucci not being as big as he is in your little corner of the web.

Oh, so you can randomly pick and choose which yardsticks fit your worldview but no one else can?

― one pretty obvious guy in the obvious (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Monday, December 27, 2010 3:15 PM (11 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

im arguing that most yardsticks are insufficient. youre arguing that sales & SNL appearances are reasonable yardsticks, since we dont have any better ones.

I mean, ffs, you are still whining about Gucci not being as big as he is in your little corner of the web.

― one pretty obvious guy in the obvious (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Monday, December 27, 2010 3:15 PM (21 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i mean FFS you are misrepresenting my argument & thats not at all what im 'whining' about?

Of course its fucking stupid to hold up SNL appearances as an accurate barometer of popularity, but no more so than YouTube plays or w/e.

It was a joke, relax, I just thought it was funny that you found a way to shoehorn Gucci into this argument too!

i dont see how i needed to 'shoehorn' him in, his inability to turn popularity into sales is pretty much a perfect barometer about how 'sales' dont mean what they used to

fwiw youtube views seem equally unscientific to me

I think we agree on 95% of this issue, but we are butting heads over the remaining 5%. I just feel like you are drawing some sort of line and saying, "this is how I listen to music so it must be more accurately reflective of the world as a whole than album sales".

im not saying its MORE reflective, im just arguing that the viability of any yardstick is pretty much nil -- nothing today is as accurate as billboard was at the turn of the decade

of course that model had its own shortcomings -- album sales would often represent no more than single sales. but there was basically only one method to access the music at this point

I'm not saying your barometers are wrong or misleading, quite the opposite. But I also think your ways leave out huge chunks of the music-consuming public simply because they don't fit in with your narrative.

im not leaving them out! i know lots of people like sade! i just think that being able to get people to buy an album is a much more narrow slice of the music-producing industry than it once was

trying to point out the diff between critics & people who still pay for albums isnt much of a hook for an article, though

i just think that being able to get people to buy an album is a much more narrow slice of the music-producing industry than it once was

Again, not arguing this point at all, I agree 100%. I think album sales are a hugely flawed and short-sighted, yet somewhat accurate, method of measuring popularity in 2010. Should it be the single measuring stick to prove that Eminem is more popular than, say, Rihanna? Of course not. But I still find it incredibly useful in some respects and not that far off reality. I mean, if you are thinking that some new-fangled measurement system is suddenly going to prove that Gucci is more popular than Drake, you are going to be disappointed.

i think it would prove that they're much closer in popularity than albums sales would indicate regardless

"But I still find it incredibly useful in some respects and not that far off reality. "

i just dont see how you are jumping to this conclusion

like, theres an entire generation now who literally do not purchase CDs.

unless they are made by taylor swift

i mean, do you realize exactly how much CD sales have fallen in the past decade? its a massive, massive drop-off

i think sales figures include legal downloads now? illegal downloads obv the huge elephant in the room but until someone comes up w/a way of measuring them, they'll remain so

Dude, you are infuriating. I am well aware how much CD sales have fallen off. Whether artist X sells 24% of 10,000,000,000 albums or 24% of 10,000 albums, they are still repping for 24% of all album sales, which, I think, still speaks of a relative level of popularity compared to other artists on the chart.

yes their relative popularity with a much decreased, much less representative sampling of the population

What I'm saying is that if we were suddenly able to track illegal downloads, we would find a pretty similar breakdown in terms of how many kids are downloading the Black Eyed Peas versus how many kids are downloading Waka. And I think that breakdown would be fairly similar to how both artists are represented on the billboard charts. Not exact, no.

i dont think 'not exact' i think 'very different'

i know its nice to pretend that plies doesnt have a massive fanbase of 18 yr old white girls but i guarantee you that things really have not changed that much since silkk the shocker was going platinum.

So do you think kids aren't illegally downloading Taylor Swift in huge numbers? I mean, where exactly is this huge shift in demographics occurring?

like, sade, maxwell ... of course these artists are popular, but is it a coincidence that they have a fanbase that likely skews older? eminem, a pop star whose profile was highest a decade ago? its 30 year old stans buying his records now.

plies is pretty popular even y album sales metrics

i dont know what the deal w/ taylor swift is. im guessing that wholesome music is an easier sell to parents -- rap cds were the ones you bought behind your parents back

But thats my point, you seem to be implying that people just aren't downloading T-Swift in huge numbers. I really think you are way off base if thats what you think.

i have no idea what her downloads are like she seems anomalous in this discussion, though -- her album sold more the week it was released than billboard #s 2-50 combined

Okay, forget her as a specific example. Do you really think rap artists are the only ones being illegally downloaded in huge numbers that are out of skew with their charting sales figures? I assure you that isn't the case.

I mean, I guarantee twice as many people illegally downloaded the new Korn CD than those who legally paid for it, even if their fanbase "skews older".

i dont think that, no, but its the area where i feel like i have a pretty solid grasp of the scale of things both historically & currently (although obv to much less of an extent currently)

im sure, like, my chemical romance or w/e their current equivalent is has been hit hard too

Delayed reaction: Matt, you should check out the 3Ball MTY EP which the artists have made available as a free download. New electronic dance sound out of Monterrey and Mexico City, and I am very hooked.

I guess it comes down to this, for me. Correct me if I'm wrong about any of the assumptions I'm making. I feel like you are saying that rap artists are hit harder than most other genres and that their sales figures are significantly out of skew with the number of people illegally downloading their albums. And that you are also saying that, if we were somehow able to wave a magic wand that tabulated illegal downloads, a lot of rap artists would suddenly leap much higher up the charts than a lot of mainstream country/rock/indie artists.

My point is that I think this is pretty much true across the board and when we waved that magic wand, the relative chart spots would remain (with some exceptions, naturally) pretty close to what they are now.

I guess it comes down to this, for me. Correct me if I'm wrong about any of the assumptions I'm making. I feel like you are saying that rap artists are hit harder than most other genres and that their sales figures are significantly out of skew with the number of people illegally downloading their albums. And that you are also saying that, if we were somehow able to wave a magic wand that tabulated illegal downloads, a lot of rap artists would suddenly leap much higher up the charts than a lot of mainstream country/rock/indie artists.

My point is that I think this is pretty much true across the board and when we waved that magic wand, the relative chart spots would remain (with some exceptions, naturally) pretty close to what they are now.

― one pretty obvious guy in the obvious (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Monday, December 27, 2010 3:55 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

ok yeah, this is where we disagree, with the caveat that i hardly think that rap is the only genre impacted or that there arent certainly all kinds of ways w/ which the charts are distorted by the changes wrought by the internet that im sure crosses lots of genre boundaries -- i only use rap as examples because i feel like i have a good handle on what kinds of things have been selling historically vs. how the charts are now. the virtual disappearance of gangster rap from the charts hasnt been reflected w/ its popularity anecdotally for me, and imo its one of many genres where the less-scientific sampling of the charts makes its popularity/influence/impact less noted/covered/noticeable to say critics. i bet this is happening w/ lots of genres, esp youth-oriented ones

i think at the very LEAST sales have been flattened -- so the peaks are much less stark than they used to be -- does that make sense? like kings of leon vs. arcade fire, i bet KOL outsold arcade fire, but i bet the difference would be much more considerable in a pre-downloading world ... that the impact doesnt even necessarily have to be about x being more popular than y, but by how MUCH they are more popular ... there are all kinds of unquantifiable changes like this

Have you guys seen the Ultimate Chart, which purportedly aggregates data from YouTube and MySpace plays, Twitter and Facebook mentions, etc.?