The 33 most streamed 60s albums

1) There is various songs on GotG1 that have very low streams
2) I Want You Back was already among the most streamed 60s songs before the movie
3) Songs do not get big because of movies, they are used on movies because they are big. There is thousands of movies using thousands of songs every year, if that was enough to get the 2nd most streamed hit of a decade we would have heard about it already.

 

I had these same arguments with his previous thread. Back in the day we might have bought albums because of a couple of hits on the album, but when we played the album we usually played it through. We didn’t skip around and only play the hits. You played the ALBUM. With streaming this has completely change. Most people are streaming songs. Hell, they couldn’t even tell you the name of the album they’re streaming the song from.

 

Easy question:

Basketball team A has 2 guys that score 40 points and 6 others that score 2 points each in a game.
Basketball team B has 8 guys scoring 10 points each.

Which team wins the game?

It's not that complicated to understand really. People acting as if "albums" have some kind of psychic power really need to look at the reality. An album is a folder for various recordings, its strenght is their cumulative strenght.

 

Oh really? I've lost count of the number of YouTube pages of songs I've seen where 90% of the comments are "I'm here because of *insert name of current movie/TV show*"

 

I wouldn't mention people misunderstanding the music business if people like you weren't speaking about "my assumptions" to a model that is entirely standard and accepted by the music industry and that is valid as demonstrated by millions of statistics.

BTW, your proposed title would be definitely wrong.

 

So what? Does it mean they were unknown before?

So weird, I though I Want You Back was a US #1 hit WAY before this movie existed but surely it was an assumption from me?

 

So "I Want You Back" is representing every song that has ever had a spike in popularity because of its use in a movie? That's a neat trick.

 

I'm not taking it personal, I have been working on data for very long, my personal opinions haven't been related to my studies for a good 15 years. As for people criticizing the RIAA system, what I'm blaming is people criticizing while they don't even know this system / why it was implemented / how consumers behave. It's ok to be ignorant about something, there is zillions of things I know nothing of, but why going out and make wild statements pushing them as facts in that case? It just feels so absurd.

 

Would you care to check Mediabase data, iTunes downloads and Spotify numbers before the airing of these movies to see if these songs waited for it to be popular?

According to your logic the Soundtrack of Avatar should have been the greatest selling album ever. It just doesn't work like that. An exposure is worth it only when the song is organically popular, the general public has to like it when they hear it. Whatever the song a person like, there is ALWAYS a reason that led him to know it, that reason is irrelevant, what matters is that he liked it, that is the meaning of popularity.

 

What logic is that? Can you perhaps not try to invent arguments people aren't trying to make? That might be useful? Also, a bit more respectful than your relentless attack dog mode.

 

I'm defensive because I expose absurd claims when they are made? Give me a break. If the point was about 'shilling my website', I wouldn't be copying results in the OP, I haven't even link the site on pre-60s list. As for data not trustworthy, it's good to make claims, it's better when they are supported with facts. Anyone is free to go to Spotify and see the data. I don't even need to comment your supposed quote that you completely invented. I didn't new the point was arguying about fantasy comments.

 

It's the logic that drives the music industry for over a century. Popularity creates exposure. A flop won't become a smash because it gets exposure, if people don't like it they won't change their mind just because it was seen here or there. It's the same in every industry. Feel free to point out a single song that bombed as per every available metric and then became a hit single after a movie.

 

Of course it was. And then about 50 years passed. It remained a fairly well known song, but not especially popular. A film came out featuring the song and the popularity spiked again. If you think that song's popularity remained at a constant rate over 50 years, then you're living on another planet.

Movies don't have any influence on music? That's a good one.

 

Can the 40 points that those two guys score be credited to two or more basketball teams? Or can you go watch a game where just one of those guys scores his 40 points and nothing else happens?

No?

Then it's not like albums, where a song can often be associated with multiple sources, or be experienced by itself.

It's not that complicated.

 

Not especially popular, seriously? As I already said, I Want You Back was among the very top 60s songs on Spotify before the movie, fighting the top spot with Fortunate Son and Sound Of Silence.

Where did I say that they have 0 influence? Nowhere. I said they do not make songs big. Some big some can get bigger for some time, some flop songs can get slight temporary interest, but a flop won't become a hit just because a movie used it. Do an easy game: take GotG1 soundtrack, list songs that were arguably popular before the movie, which ones weren't, and then do the same as of now and tell me if the list is different.

 

Yeah, a lot of these albums are being propped by 1-3 tunes that have occurred on compilations, so it sort of skews claiming plays for the integral album itself.

There needs to be a specific way to code for specific plays and their sources.

 

Huh? Songs are credited to ONE studio album, their parent one, where they first popped up. These lists involve 0 double counting so your point is completely false. Songs are to albums the exact same thing a players are to teams: one part of it and when combined exactly 100% of it.

Saying that Electric Ladyland isn't bigger Sgt Pepper's because it isn't as "consistent" would be the same as saying the Bulls weren't the best NBA team during the first half of the 90s because they had MJ so they were not "consistent".

 

George putting Abbey over the top with 200+ million streams of "Here Comes The Sun", the most of any Beatle song.

After all he went through struggling to get his songs aired on the Beatles records, I wonder if he would get some kind of dark (horse) satisfaction out of that.

 

Talking of songs being made by appearing in films. An example might be the Leonard Cohen song, "Hallelujah", which nobody other than Leonard Cohen fans heard when it was first released, and there were far less of them in 1984 than probably at any time in his career before or after. The immensely popular John Cale then recorded it, so all the John Cale fans who weren't already Leonard Cohen fans got to hear it. Then Jeff Buckley covered it, but Jeff Buckley was no more popular than Leonard Cohen or John Cale in those days. Then someone at DreamWorks had the bright idea of using Cale's version for the film "Shrek" in 2001, since then everyone and their mother has recorded it, it's popularity has increased exponentially. A version by Alexandra Burke was a Christmas No. 1 in the UK and the fastest selling single by a woman in the UK charts ever, it's now like a canonical classic beloved of everyone from age 7 to 107 and that's not down to Leonard Cohen or John Cale or even Jeff Buckley that's down to a giant green animated ogre.

 

To be honest, I have a hard time wrapping my head around your thought processes in order to refute them.

I never said the song was ever a flop, nor that films make every song popular. I said this specific song's popularity spiked because of Guardians, because younger generations became exposed to a great, older song. Not every song on the soundtrack is going to spike, obviously. That goes without saying. How that bolsters your argument baffles me. You make incredible leaps of logic. 2 + 2 = turkey sandwich.

 

And I said...

Once again, a movie does not make people like a song. They expose a song to the public which then is free to like it or not. There is zillions of songs used on movies, 99,99% of them get no rewards, simply because they aren't popular. When a song gets a boost, it's because it had that popularity. That is was milked on the back of a movie, an ad, direct marketing, or initial promotion of the song doesn't matter. It's called promotion, ALL songs got their share proportionally to how efficient they are to exploit it.

 

"Hallelujah" was not a popular song before "Shrek". Obviously not many people had heard it but appearing in the movie "Shrek" changed that. That's why music publishers try to get their songs placed in movies, so people will hear the song, like it and purchase either that song or others by the same artists, their artists for preference.

 

No, that isn't true for me. I subscribe to Apple Music and hardly ever play any of my cd's. I'll stream it. And this includes The Beatles.

 

I showed this to a friend and he said, "Is that the list or the Guardians of the Galaxy soundtrack?"

 

admiration for Dylan seems to have continued through the 90's and 00's but it's tailed off largely in the generation that has become teens/early 20somethings in the 2010's