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

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.?

i question the reliability of those stats but that def LOOKS more like a chart id imagine - albeit missing the oldster artists

I think it's not at all controversial to suggest that some genres will have been hit harder than others by illegal downloads.

In particular, genres which are more likely to be followed as genres by their fans online will build up communities of people sharing illegal downloads with one another. Whereas established fan bases for established artists (a) skew older; (b) are more likely to be followed in their capacity as a standalone artist; and (c) command a loyalty amongst that fan base that is more likely to result in a cd being purchased, even if in many cases out of a sense of obligation or guilt.

Moreover certain artists/styles still have a residual package-fetishism thing at work. Young girls who are Taylor Swift fans are more likely to want the picture book that comes with the CD. Dance music fans are the least sentimentalist of all, and to the extent that they fetishize anything it's vinyl - but not packaging etc.

Also CDs being purchased as gifts for friends and family - always a big thing - is now a proportionately much bigger thing than it used to be.

All of which helps to lessen slightly the impact of illegal downloading for some artists rather than others.

It hits all artists massively of course, but even minor variations in the proportional impact will have large effects on the resulting chart positions.

I've kind of lost track of this discussion (went to the post office), but should have mentioned above that there are new metrics being tried out, beyond album sales. For instance, how meaningful it is is anybody's guess at this point probably, but a couple weeks ago Billboard launched an artist chart they call the "Social 50," which they say "will guage artist popularity using a formula blending weekly additions of friends, fans and followers, along with weekly artist page views and weekly song plays on MySpace, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and iLike. Social music tracking service Next Big Sound gathers data from these sites..."

The first chart was in the December 11 issue; top 20 artists went:

Rihanna
Justin Bieber
Eminem
Lady Gaga
Nicki Minaj
Black Eyed Peas
Katy Perry
Ke$ha
Linkin Park
Shakira
Lil Wayne
Michael Jackson
Taylor Swift
Isher
Christina Grimmie (who apparently covered Nelly's "Just A Dream" on youtube)
Don Omar
Akon
Shinedown
Enrique Iglesias
Beyonce

That same week, the top 20 artist albums, on the album sales chart, were by:

Kanye West
Nicki Minaj
Susan Boyle
Taylor Swift
Jackie Evancho (*O Holy Night*)
Rihanna
Justin Bieber (who actually had albums at both #7 and #21)
My Chemical Romance
Ne-Yo
Kid Rock
Josh Groban
Rascal Flatts
Keith Urban
Ke$ha
Katy Perry
Sugarland
Chris Tomlin (another Christmas album))
Justin Aldean
Lady Antebellum
Bon Jovi

Very different list. So the artists with apparently grown-up audiences (Boyle, Groban, the Christmas ones, Bon Jovi, Kid Rock), and country people in general (Taylor Swift included) didn't do as well on the social networks. Neither did My Chemical Romance. And obviously there are other variables that neither chart is tracking (illegal downloads being one big one, probably -- though I'm pretty sure Big Champagne has done some work in quantifying those over the past few years. But also, for instance, legal singles downloads, magazines purchased with Justin Bieber on the cover, requests to radio stations, live tickets, etc.) And to really show who's most popular, you'd have to come up with a formula that somehow combined all the variables.

yeah but "the social 50" & the chart that jaymc linked too are pretty much imperceptible from the hot 100

even taking into account official social media like youtube, last.fm, myspazz and what have you, the unquantifiable elephant in the room is still common or garden illegal downloading - torrents and, y'know, just straight hitting up filestube.

deej/j0rdan i assume datpiff counts d/ls? do you think a majority of rap mixtape traffic goes through it?

fwiw im not arguing about the hot 100 (which iirc has drastically shifted its measurements in the past few years anyway? incorporating downloads etc) just the albums charts

datpiff does count dls -- iirc the top mixtapes have hundreds of thousands of downloads

this of course is further distorted by the fact that youre now talking WORLDWIDE downloads

and even further, because records labels (i.e., guccis) forced datpiff to remove his official mixtapes

xxxxp
Uh, Usher not Isher obv.

And Michael Jackson did well on that first Social 50 Chart despite probably having lots of adults in his audience.

And right, there's that "Ultimate chart" too, which preceded the new one at Billboard.

this of course is further distorted by the fact that youre now talking WORLDWIDE downloads

this feeds into something i'd add to tim's (spot on) post re: who is more likely to illegally download (prob the most perceptive thing i've seen on these demographics tbh) - fans of music that's not legally available in their country

This piece, which ran upon the Ultimate Chart's unveiling in July, says Big Champagne are planning to "chart illegal downloads separately through a service called TopSwaps" (though it also seems to be suggesting they may be incorporated into the Ultimate Chart at some point.)

http://www.fastcompany.com/1672176/move-over-soundscan-music-has-a-new-chart

I think, as usual, the decline in music sales is greatly exaggerated. It's changing, for sure, but as of last year's report, it was still actually on the rise overall: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Nielsen-Music-2009-Year-End-Press-Release.pdf

We'll see what the new report says next week.

YouTube and fileshares only have any financial impact on an artist if the artist tours much. It also depends on whether the type of audience that artist attracts actually goes to shows, which might vary widely between lesser known r&b, country, hip-hop, indie rock, and metal artists.

It would be cool to see separate reports from all the streaming/subscription services too - Last F.M., Spotify, MOG, Rhapsody, etc. I think Nielson covers 'em, but not separated out.

There are all sorts of variables at work that are difficult to factor in appropriately.

Like, one thing I often see glossed over is that it's not just people like us who are obtaining more music than ever before - it's the "average" 12 cd per year music listener as well, at least to the extent that they are downloading illegally. I think lots of people download what's big / popular / charting / on the radio for the purpose of having their own (in effect) radio playlist (this is particularly obv at parties), whereas before they might have just used the radio for that purpose. So there are lots of people who are now obtaining the most popular music who simply wouldn't have bothered before, in the same way that many people here seem to listen to 5 times as many albums per year now than they could have afforded in the pre-downloading era.

Conversely, the major labels and big artists are probably the most successful at stymying the accessibility and availability of free music on-line.