Streaming: Unfairly Benefits R&B/Hip-Hop?

[DiscoHeaven23 35,007]

Do you guys think streaming unfairly benefits R&B/Hip-Hop songs? The numbers show that these songs typically dominate the top of the streaming songs chart. It seems like those who listen to R&B and Hip-Hop are more likely to stream than buy music. 

In the last 52 weeks, 37 of the weeks have had a number one streaming song that is Hip-Hop or R&B. "Hello", "Sorry" and "Pillowtalk" were the only other non-R&B/Hip-Hop songs to top the streaming chart. 

What do you think?

[ryanripley 86,575]

well it's a pretty popular genre right now, trends change with time  although i'm slighty confused by your post, do you mean their chart positions come off as inaccurate or do you think it's blocking other genres from gaining recognition? 

[venusfly 17,885]

I think its just the fact that r&b and hip-hop are becoming the most popular genres right now. 

[Bear 7,515]

Not particularly, those who are streaming tend to be the people who aren't buying so it all works out in terms of chart positioning. 

Although I still think the formula needs adjusting, streaming should still be worth less to Billboard than it is now imo. 

[kvnrp 48,353]

Remember the time from the early 2000s to 2008 when Hip Hop was everywhere?

Then it went away and EDM took over, and now maybe Hip Hop is taking over again, idk.

[artRaver 3,188]

Mneh, I just think overall Hip Hop & RnB is one of the most popular worldwide and I'll be honest I'm one of those people who stream majority of the time as to buying the album on iTunes. 

I don't necessarily think it's unfair though (then again I'm not into the whole charting shenanigans) but we know if Pop was dominating right now and Gaga ended up with a single that had a high position on the chart we wouldn't be questioning a thing, lol. 

[LanasNerfGun 4,679]

I don't see how it's unfair. The songs people like enough to stream them the most deserve to be at the top wouldn't you agree?

[DeanWinchester 41,390]

19 minutes ago, Hooker said:

Not particularly, those who are streaming tend to be the people who aren't buying so it all works out in terms of chart positioning. 

Although I still think the formula needs adjusting, streaming should still be worth less to Billboard than it is now imo. 

This. I have no problems with including streaming in the certifications but I think the formula needs to be reworked, especially the single streams affecting album sales 

I find it ridiculous that a song that people would not spend the money for but is streamed repeatedly could become comparable to paying for a full album price 

[DiscoHeaven23 35,007]

24 minutes ago, ryanripley said:

well it's a pretty popular genre right now, trends change with time  although i'm slighty confused by your post, do you mean their chart positions come off as inaccurate or do you think it's blocking other genres from gaining recognition? 

As in, it's over-inflating their positions on the Billboard Hot 100

[DiscoHeaven23 35,007]

3 minutes ago, A Gaga Lad said:

 

I find it ridiculous that a song that people would not spend the money for but is streamed repeatedly could become comparable to paying for a full album price 

Yea, this is what i was speaking too 

Sorry if this was a confusing post for everyone. I prob didnt convey it in the right manner. 

[Bear 7,515]

1 minute ago, A Gaga Lad said:

This. I have no problems with including streaming in the certifications but I think the formula needs to be reworked, especially the single streams affecting album sales 

I find it ridiculous that a song that people would not spend the money for but is streamed repeatedly could become comparable to paying for a full album price 

Exactly this. I get the point that the way we consume music is changing and streaming is a huge part of that, so yes it does make sense for it to be included in chart positioning. BUT when artists can go number one from streams alone and overtake so easily other artists who have more sales by far something is not right.

Streams just don't show the amount of commitment that a purchase does, they are much more susceptible to hype i.e people just checking out an album out of curiosity, and that should be better reflected in whatever formula is used to calculate the charting positions. 

[StrawberryBlond 14,777]

What really gives RnB/hip hop songs an unfair advantage is that so many of them feature one, two or even three other artists on it. That automatically increases interest in the fans of these features, so the song gets more views, more streams, more sales than if it were solo. This is why so many rap songs have such high viewing figures and likes on Vevo and why they can see a million copies of their single so easily. With other genres, collabing isn't as major an element, so they perform worse because they're all on their own. I mean, I think a big part of what made Work such a continuous success was the fact that Drake was on it and he's hot right now. Had Rihanna been completely on her own, she either wouldn't have gone to #1 at all or had a lot less weeks than what she did. Occasionally, you'll get an RnB/hip hop song that does well completely solo but most of the time, their position is bolstered by help from others. And that's a bit unfair, especially as it's hardly a rare occurance because it's a huge part of the RnB/hip hop game. Multiple collabs will occur every album, meaning the chance for hits is off the scale. Makes you wonder if they'd be the stars they are without all the help they get?

[malazam 15,710]

It benefits every genre that's popular in the moment.

Who streams a R&B/Hip-Hop could stream a 'pop' song, so the answer is no.

and pop stands for 'popular' and what's popular in the moment, music meant to be commercially successful and since those genres actually are meant to do the same , both are considred pop.

+ you said they stream it but don't buy it....so, others genres fans should tend to buy it and not stream it, what would become a tie in the charts.....which shows that it doesn't benefits bc they're part of the pop secta now.