Forum
I think you're focusing too much on playlists, Metallica or Zeppelin fans are mostly into albums, not playlists. Metallica for example :
Master Of Puppets 32m
Ride The Lightning 27m
And Justice For All 26m
Metallica 24m
Kill Em All 15m
Load 6m
Reload 5m
St Anger 5m
These numbers simply represent the popularity of these albums, the Rolling Stones have a lot of forgotten tracks because they have a lot of forgotten albums... Aerosmith is a perfect example, they have more Spotify followers than Zeppelin but check this out :
Toys In The Attic 2.1m
Aerosmith 1.7m
Get A Grip 1.7m
Rocks 1.2m
Pump 1.2m
Nine Lives 1m
Get Your Wings 0.9m
Honkin On Bobo 0.8m
Just Push Play 0.8m
Permanent Vacation 0.7m
Draw The Line 0.4m
Night In The Ruts 0.2m
Done With Mirrors 0.2m
Rock In A Hard Place 0.2m
People just don't care about their albums, that's all.
I think a lot of listeners use Spotify more like the radio. They add some favorites. Some songs, some artists. And then Spotify's algorithm plays similar stuff. And this is likely to be popular songs. This way popular songs get even more popular, forgotten ones stay, well forgotten.
My point is that artists with a large catalog are more likely to have forgotten songs than artists with a smaller catalog.
I'm an album guy. I still have all my vinyls, but I rarely stream an album from start to finish online. When I do, it's usually when I check out a new album release.
I think this is quit normal, because songs on most newer albums have more plays at the beginning of the tracklist and less at the end (singles excepted).
I don't think that pattern is quit as profound on older albums, because users already know which old songs they wanna hear, or Spotify "knows" what songs their users wanna hear.
I realize some still stream DSOTM from start to finish, but all it's songs are in Floyds top 20, and thus are likely to fit Spotify's algorithms as well.
I know I talked about playlists before and algorithms now. But both are likely to draw from popular tracks and not deep cuts. Again if your catalog is the size of Nirvana or GnR there aren't really that many deep cuts to be forgotten.
I mentioned Metallica might an exception, you mentioned Beatles was the obvious exception, but I still believe I have a point.
I'm with Analord on this and always have been. I think it's far more to do with popularity than playlists. The simple fact for me, is that a lot of DCs albums are just not very popular. Same with Queen, even although the film boosted a lot of their underperforming album tracks.
In my opinion the reason those 3 albums by GNR and Nirvana are so well streamed is to do with each bands popularity. Many other acts have 3 album catalogues but do not manage the streams those acts do, so that proves to me that having a small(er) catalogue is not the main reason for excellent streaming figures.
Well, if Queen only had 3 albums they likely wouldn't have had any songs under 100m plays...
And if Nirvana had released 15 albums I'm sure they would have many unpopular songs.
I agree GnR and Nirvana have many streams because they are very popular. Obviously. But so are Queen, AC/DC, Rolling Stones, Aerosmith... All I'm saying is if Nirvana and Guns had released 15 albums, they would likely have many poor performing tracks as well...
"Bleach" is not very good, but Nirvana fans, Nevermind fans don't have many other options do they? So Bleach has strong figures. Whether its due algorithms, playlists or whatever, if Nirvana had a 10-15 album career I bet Bleach had a lot of forgotten tracks...
But your debating in "ifs" and that is pointless. What we do know is, many past acts have had a career of 3 studio albums but not many, if any, have the streams of GNR or Nirvana. If it is so easy to get these kind of streams from 3 albums and playlists, every 3 album act would have them, but they don't, so this has to be about their popularity.
"Well, if Queen only had 3 albums they likely wouldn’t have had any songs under 100m plays…"
What? If Queen broke up after their 3rd album I don't even know if one of their songs would've 100m streams (maybe Killer Queen).
"“Bleach” is not very good"
11th best album from 1989 according to critics, 13th best grunge album ever according to Rolling Stone, and music nerds on RateYourMusic gave it way more ratings than Back In Black (24k vs 17k).
I feel like both of you Martin and Analord are missunderstanding the point of Thomas.
He isn't saying that had Queen only released their first 3 albums, they would be Abbey Roads, obviously not. Not that GnR and Nirvana are weak/average bands.
The point is, had Queen's strength been concentrated in 3 albums, say put 2-3 big hits per album then random deep cuts from them, streams of these deep cuts would be way higher than they are in the current configuration. And the point is, had Nirvana or GnR continued up to now a la Pearl Jam or RHCP, they would still have terrific total streams obviously, but the deepest cuts would be much weaker, because people listening to them (fans mostly) would spread their time over much more songs.
I do not agree that these are "ifs", it's something verified through all artists, and just natural because listening time can't be extended. Just pointing out a random example, and we could pick zillions of them.
Drake's Scorpion has 11 songs with streams between 55m and 125m. It was a massively successful album, and Drake is a huge "album force", but he has a large discography and the album had 25 songs. Harry Styles' last album has all its songs but 1 at 140m or more. Are his deep cuts much more successful? No, it's mostly down to the fact that he only has 3 studio sets, no remixes/side tracks, plus One Direction catalog but it isn't that much of a competition for many listeners.
Even more extreme, Olivia Rodrigo's Sour has only one track below 315m (and that one is closing in 240m). Is it like 5 times more popular than Scorpion? Of course it isn't, it's just that with the same number of fans spending the same amount of time listening to their favorite artist, it concludes on much higher numbers for Sour rather than Scorpion.
By the way, this situation is also visible with big hits but this time it's due to playlists. Big hits of artists who have 2-3 hits only will have relatively higher streams with these than the 2-3 biggest hits from artists with 20+ hits.
The reason is simple, all relevant playlists cap the number of tracks per artists. Say you go listen to 'Rock Classics'. The cap is max 5 songs per artist. AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, the Stones have 5. So have GnR. Songs like Start Me Up or T.N.T. miss out just because of the sheer strength of their remaining hits. In the other side, songs like Don't Stop Believin', House of the Rising Sun, Zombie, Fortunate Son, Smoke On The Water, Hotel California, Wonderwall, Losing My Religion or Creep will be there no matter what. And this is a playlist with a cap at 5, most have either 1, 2 or 3, which make it even more extreme.
I get what Thomas is saying, I just disagree that it is totally to do with playlists, in my opinion it's more to do with popularity. The reason those AC/DCs albums are such poor streamers, is that for the most part they are just not very popular albums and never have been. The public don't really care about stuff like Flick of The Switch, Fly On The Wall, Stiff Upper Lip, Ballbreaker, Powerage, Blow Up Your Video or even For Those About To Rock and never did, they were not particularly popular on release are not now.
I think too much is being made of size of catalogue and not enough about popularity of catalogue. Most acts that exist for decades reach a point where the general popularity of their new releases declines and they become less relevant, only appealing to fans. This happened to the Stones, AC/DC, even Zeppelin, it's clear Presence and In Through The Outdoor are a decline in popularity and success from their first 6 albums. I also think that some acts just have albums people want to listen to, while most don't.
MJD explained my point perfectly above. A lot better than me I'm sure.
I know Queen didn't blast out of the gates with their 3 first albums. Obviously. But had their catalog been limited to 1975 - 1979 only. Then their deep cuts from ANATO, ADATR, NOTW & Jazz would have been much bigger. Massive. Because they wouldn't have to split listening time with 10 more albums.
And that might be a big if. Because they did release a lot of albums. Befire and after. So it might not make any sense to compare deep catalog songs by Queen and Nirvana.
But this rather long thread started with Analord listing Led Zeppelin's superior deep tracks to AC/DC's. I noted that one reason is that AC/DC have around 175 songs and Led Zeppelin have 75.
So all my "ifs" was to point out that maybe Analord's comparison wasn't that fair to begin with.
Im sorry about my comment about "Bleach". That didn't come out right. Again, Gui explained it much better.
I think you were correct about Bleach still. The thing with this kind of albums is that they have next to no general public awareness, yet the artist has a very solid fanbase. It creates a situation where most people speaking about it / rating it online will have a very favorable bias to it.
'Lists of lists', understand sites merging together tons of lists from users, benefit to these albums that are pushed a lot by a restricted number of people.
It's very visible when we look at it closely. On besteveralbums, Bleach is listed as the 6th best album from 1989, because it has "a lot" (which are still very few in absolute terms) ratings and appears on "a lot" (same) users' best albums lists.
Yet, once you rank 1989 albums by average ratings, it pops up at a dreadful #109 position. A very different story, illustrating well how its ranking is artificially corrupted by a very commited group of fans, rather than reflecting a real widespread acclaim.
"even Zeppelin". You said it.
You disagree with me, but still you actually backed up my point that as things are comparing least popular tracks by Zeppelin and AC/DC is somewhat unfair.
Now had Zeppelin carried on another decade without Bonham and realeased another 5-6 albums, then comparing them to AC/DC or the Stones or Aerosmith might have been more fair. Granted Zeppelin would still have come out on top. They were the more popular group and have the sales to prove it.
But their massive classic rock radio airplay would have been split between more songs, their massive catalog sales - massive cd sales would have been split between more albums, and their massive listening time on Spotify would have been split between more songs.
But they didn't, they called it quits after Bonham died. So Analord's comparison was a bit unfair.
"Most acts... even Zeppelin". You said it Martin.
You disagree with me and that's allright. But still you actually backed up my point that catalog size matter, that as things are comparing least popular tracks by Zeppelin and AC/DC is somewhat unfair.
Now had Zeppelin carried on another decade without Bonham and released another 5-6 albums, then comparing them to AC/DC or the Stones or Aerosmith might have been more fair. Granted Zeppelin would still have come out on top. They were the more popular group and have the sales to prove it.
But their massive classic rock radio airplay would have been split between more songs, their massive catalog sales - massive CD sales would have been split between more albums, and their massive listening time on Spotify would have been split between more songs.
But they didn't, they called it quits after Bonham died. Therefore Analord's comparison was a bit unfair.
I didn't say it was catalogue size Thomas, I said it was a decline in popularity, due to the length of career, two different things.
Zeppelin were pretty popular from start to finish, just Presence and ITTOD were not as popular or successful as their first 6 albums.
Although saying that, both albums were still quite successful, hitting #1 in the US and UK and both entering in the Top 10 in the US (quite a rare feat pre Soundscan) Presence at #2 and ITTOD at #10 (it entered at #1 on Cashbox). ITTOD was even the Top Selling album of 1979 I think, spending 7 weeks at #1 in the US, the same as LZII and more than any other of their US #1s.
"The reason those AC/DCs albums are such poor streamers, is that for the most part they are just not very popular albums and never have been."
Exactly, that was my only point. Zeppelin's albums are way more popular than AC/DC's, which explains these very low numbers for AC/DC's least streamed songs. People really care about Metallica albums and they really don't care about Aerosmith albums, that's all. AC/DC are kind of in between I guess?
Sorry but ranking albums by average ratings on "besteveralbums" is ridiculous 😆 For example, the #6 album only has 9 votes (with a 80/100 note) and most of the top 100 albums only have a dozen votes, while Bleach has 1250 votes with a 76/100 note...
Again, Bleach is the 11th best album from 1989 according to critics, maybe you don't care about critics, that's fine, I also mentioned RateYourMusic which essentially represent people who goes beyond pop/commercial stuff, their #1 album is OK Computer (85k ratings), and as I said Bleach has 24k and Back In Black 17k.
Even Thomas realized his comment was wrong, so please...
Hi Analord!
Please, prevent me the "pleases", especially when you base your message, as usual, on misquotes 😉
I don't think I've said that the list by average ratings is amazing, have I? These lists are all ridiculous, including the ones you mentioned, that's the point. You say that RateYourMusic is great because "it goes beyond pop/commercial stuff", as if that was a good thing, and even highlight how Bleach has more ratings than BIB. I would have expected that you would realize yourself when saying something like this that all it proves is the bias of these ratings. The simple fact that there are more people willing to rate Bleach than BIB proves a massive pro-Nirvana bias. It seems quite obvious, don't you think?
About ratings/critics' list in general, you seem to quote them as if you were quoting sales figures. You put in bold that "Bleach is 11th from 1989" as if that was an universal truth. Critics aren't facts. It's a small bubble, full of people with a bias towards the classic rock heritage, and with a clear US-centrix view. The same people who say that "rock is dead" for decades can't help but put mostly rock albums in all their lists even for current material. Have you ever check similar lists from other countries to see how your claim holds, or are we supposed to just accept that the US media defines the world?
Oh boy...
I never said RateYourMusic is "great", I just mentioned them. I've no idea what you mean by them having a "massive pro-Nirvana bias", do you mean that Nirvana is considered to be cooler and less commercial than AC/DC?
Thomas said "Bleach is not very good" as if it was an established fact, I said critics love the album, a simple counter-argument, I don't really care about critics myself.
Also, Bleach is 11th with a top 10 including De La Soul, Madonna, New Order, Soul II Soul and the Beastie Boys, so your rant about "classic rock heritage" or something is a little strange...
Also :
"Have you ever check similar lists from other countries to see how your claim holds, or are we supposed to just accept that the US media defines the world?"
This list represents critics from a dozen countries, including Belgium, Poland, Norway, Italy...etc., it's the best website I know when it comes to critical consensus, if you know a better one please tell me...
As of 26/1 2024:
Back in Black - 1.429.184.325
Live River Plate - 18.426.218
Live 1991 - 8.523.380
Live Capitol Center - 605.867
Live Moscow - 407.541
Live (80s) - 55.818
Total - 1.457.203.149
Highway to Hell - 1.427.959.206
Live River Plate - 19.186.898
Live 1991 - 6.148.003
Live Moscow - 2.070.969
Live Paris - 1.816.351
Live (70s) - 20.017
Total - 1.457.201.444
BIB leads HTH with less than 2000 plays on Spotify. HTH has been gaining 100.000+ a day for the past year, so tomorrow HTH is projected to become AC/DC's biggest song on Spotify.
