Go Dolphins! Follow

She's tied with Dolly PArton for Grammies. (she has lots)

Sloppy seconds?

Are you trying to say that a small number of fans were buying her music over and over and that's why every one of her albums went to number 1?

Note that Billboard has always been about sales and never about playtime, at least as far as I've been able to find. Radio Stations certainly use the numbers as input into what they should play.

Edited, Feb 12th 2013 6:45pm by Xsarus

That ***.

As well it should since it's obviously far more popular. Which means more people are into Song B than Song A. Which means someone arguing that Song B is "niche" is an idiot.

If Song A was more popular, more people would be paying for it and it would blow Song B out of the water with its combination of radio play and sales. Of course, I honestly doubt the veracity of your claims regarding Beyonce's radio play (especially versus mythical songs that are getting regular play on four-five times as many stations).

Edited, Feb 12th 2013 7:31pm by Jophiel

It's trickery.

baji's goin' deep.

I'd say he listens to AM talk radio, but he doesn't get his news from anywhere, so that can't be it.

100% popularity among 5% of the population compared to 5% popularity among 100% of the population. You get that total number of downloads doesn't tell us how diverse the audience downloading the songs are. Total number of radio stations and genres playing a song does. Billboard changed their methodology specifically because smaller "niche" artists (like hip hop and rap) were getting big record sales, but were not getting broad radio play. Again, we can discuss those changes as well, but the end result is that it is much more likely (because it's actually possible now) for a musician to chart high on Billboard while only hitting a very small number of radio stations across the US. Which means that a larger percentage of the total population may never have heard their song(s) at all than was possible before.



Not necessarily. You're also conflating "more popular" with "broad audience". You could have an artist which appeals to a small audience, but appeals very strongly and every one of that small percentage of the population buys her song. You could also have an artist with broader appeal, but fewer people within that audience are going to actually pay for the song. There are an amazing number of songs I hear on the radio that I don't pay money to buy Joph. I'm sure that's the same for everyone. So saying that because one song was purchased more than another doesn't tell us anything about how broad the audience for that song was.




I can only provide anecdotal information for this. I listen to a number of stations. I don't recall ever hearing a Beyonce song. Again, it's possible I have, but if so, they didn't make any significant impact on me, and I certainly didn't recognize anything she sang in the Superbowl as something I'd heard before. She does not get airplay on pop or alternative or rock stations. She mostly gets play on R&B and Soul stations, which I don't listen to. Guess what? I also don't listen to country stations. There's a ton of country music stars that I'm sure are *huge* in their genre. But I'd also call them niche artists if they don't get airplay on the more mainstream stations. There's a ton of crossover in music, but if I have to go listen to a genre focused station to hear someone's music, that's when I think of that artist as having a limited audience.

I often find myself wondering how a single person can be on the obvious losing end of so many arguments simultaneously and continue to delude himself into thinking it's everyone else who's wrong. That's a mighty strong (false) sense of self-confidence, there.

Because I'm massively smarter than 99% of the population. I'd explain how that correlates to the various arguments I engage in, but you'd probably not understand it.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Why are we arguing pop music with a reclusive middle-aged IT engineer?

That's heavy.