Jump to content

Charts Discussion


corvus albus

Featured Posts

LGMonster95
31 minutes ago, Animal Claws said:

 

Gaga really came strong with her streaming in the past years. 2 years ago she had like 0 albums with 1B streams and now she has 5, that's f*cking impressive

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 17k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
7 minutes ago, LGMonster95 said:

Gaga really came strong with her streaming in the past years. 2 years ago she had like 0 albums with 1B streams and now she has 5, that's f*cking impressive

One of the reasons I stanned Gaga in the first place was her mind. She can easily make herself relevant anytime she wants. Truly a mastermind. 10 years from now she'll still be relevant. Mark my words.

Love it when you call me legs, in the morning buy me eggs 🥚
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gagaloo911
40 minutes ago, Fish said:

i mean.. those are the rules, gaga could have profited off off them... just like she sold BTW albums for 99 cents. I think as LM's its still fair to claim these sales, just like it is fair to claim the 2018 yo song streams on your 2020 albums. 

Gaga didn't sell BTW for 99 cents, Amazon did. She had no control over that, it was solely Amazon's decision to do so as a campaign to promote their online music platform. And it was Amazon who took whatever loss it did to do that.

Interscope and Gaga were not a part of that.

The same cannot be said for Ava, Halsey, and Katy and their labels making the explicit choice to include old songs on their new albums to boost its stream count from the get go.

So really just not comparable. At all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LGMonster95
11 minutes ago, Sherry said:

One of the reasons I stanned Gaga in the first place was her mind. She can easily make herself relevant anytime she wants. Truly a mastermind. 10 years from now she'll still be relevant. Mark my words.

I'm pretty sure she's going to be relevant for a long time, she has everything to have that kind of career. She's already on the legend status, imagine how her career would look like at the end, literally God have mercy :giveup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LGMonster95 said:

I'm pretty sure she's going to be relevant for a long time, she has everything to have that kind of career. She's already on the legend status, imagine how her career would look like at the end, literally God have mercy :giveup:

We're not ready :legend:

Love it when you call me legs, in the morning buy me eggs 🥚
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gagaloo911 said:

Gaga didn't sell BTW for 99 cents, Amazon did. She had no control over that, it was solely Amazon's decision to do so as a campaign to promote their online music platform. And it was Amazon who took whatever loss it did to do that.

Interscope and Gaga were not a part of that.

The same cannot be said for Ava, Halsey, and Katy and their labels making the explicit choice to include old songs on their new albums to boost its stream count from the get go.

So really just not comparable. At all.

whatever who did it, is gaga and interscope claimings those sales numbers? 

 

It is comparable in the sense that it is a tactic that most likely helped gaga have more sales than if the rule against too low priced albums was on, regardless of who made that decision. 

 

also, maybe ava didnt want to include SBS but her record label made it a sine qua non condition? You just have no idea, and at this point you're just making excuses for Gaga. I think there was nothing wrong with selling BTW 99 cents, but to call out other artists or labels who use similar tactics is bad faith. 

 

also, what about chromatica's merch bundles? If i am not mistaken those sales counted towards regular album sales.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Million Gypsies
1 hour ago, Animal Claws said:

 

Wheres BTW :cryga:

Ohhh I see what's happening it's going to be her 6th album with 1B streams on the 10th anniversary :ally:  Ha mind :sis:

I just realized it's gonna be the 10th anniversary next year omg :saladga::saladga::saladga:

...Still though why isn't BTW there yet I don't understand :selena: 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Animal Claws
19 minutes ago, Million Gypsies said:

Wheres BTW :cryga:

Ohhh I see what's happening it's going to be her 6th album with 1B streams on the 10th anniversary :ally:  Ha mind :sis:

I just realized it's gonna be the 10th anniversary next year omg :saladga::saladga::saladga:

...Still though why isn't BTW there yet I don't understand :selena: 

BTW is next (2021 hopefully)

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fish said:

i mean.. those are the rules, gaga could have profited off off them... just like she sold BTW albums for 99 cents. I think as LM's its still fair to claim these sales, just like it is fair to claim the 2018 yo song streams on your 2020 albums. 

Is it really necessary to say for the thousandth time that neither Gaga nor her record company knew about this 99 cents mess and that they were "indemnified" for this after receiving the full price for each copy sold by Amazon for 99 cents?!

For God's sake, it's been almost a decade and some of you haven't learned yet, you look like haters who insist on hitting the same damn key, do a search before going on the haters' wave! :saladga:

 

The retailer had been selling the digital version of the album at a heavily discounted 99 cents (60p) in a effort to hook in customers, but according to the New York Magazine, it has set Amazon back over $3 million as they have been paying the singer’s record label Universal $9 (£5.60) per album they sell. As they’ve moved over 440,000 downloads, this adds up to over $3 million.

https://www.nme.com/news/music/lady-gaga-327-1284202

Link to post
Share on other sites

connorfilm
2 minutes ago, pop ate my heart said:

Is ROM still going up on US radio?

I believe so. It’s not freefalling like it was once Interscope stopped pushing it on pop radio. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Adelita said:

Is it really necessary to say for the thousandth time that neither Gaga nor her record company knew about this 99 cents mess and that they were "indemnified" for this after receiving the full price for each copy sold by Amazon for 99 cents?!

For God's sake, it's been almost a decade and some of you haven't learned yet, you look like haters who insist on hitting the same damn key, do a search before going on the haters' wave! :saladga:

 

The retailer had been selling the digital version of the album at a heavily discounted 99 cents (60p) in a effort to hook in customers, but according to the New York Magazine, it has set Amazon back over $3 million as they have been paying the singer’s record label Universal $9 (£5.60) per album they sell. As they’ve moved over 440,000 downloads, this adds up to over $3 million.

https://www.nme.com/news/music/lady-gaga-327-1284202

no one is denying that. youre missing my main point and avoiding answering the several other points I raised in my subsequent posts.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • SharkmanthaC locked this topic
  • PartySick unpinned and pinned this topic
  • PartySick unpinned this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...