Forum
Hi Analord!
It seems you are so concerned in trying to discredit what I post that you get very simple facts wrong.
Firstly, the Yardbirds, Cream and BF aren't merged with Clapton, I think everyone but you sees 4 CSPC articles and their 4 names in the all-time list, just like with Genesis / Phil.
Secondly, surely you know that all remixes / live versions of every track, in every article, are combined with the main version of a song. You can't have missed it. It seems that one more time, because a result doesn't fit your feelings about what results should be (here the all-time rank of Layla), you want to artificially change a rule so that you are happy. We are not the OCC to do that.
Thirdly, it's kinda ironic that you say that Tears In Heaven has the most streams, because there are two versions of Layla (the original and the Unplugged acoustic), while Tears itself has its streams split the exact same way, with the acoustic leading the way (251.36m to 124.62m by the date of the data retrieval for the article). At times (including the last 2 days), Spotify merge the numbers, but they always end up splitting them back, as they do with Stevie Wonder's Superstition or various Pink Floyd songs for example. If you really want the most streamed single version from Clapton, that one would be Cocaine.
Of course, it's clear that the US loves, white, blues influenced, rock bands to a far higher degree, than most other nations.
Middle part, as answered.
The last paragraph! WTF, why such venom? Can't you see that Layla acoustic, is obviously just a reworked version of Layla. It's still Layla. Tori Amos, Professional Widow, totally different to the Remix, sound like 2 completely different songs, but still classed as Professional Widow.
Anyway, what's with the angry bitterness, in all your comments. There is always that undercurrent of sarcasm or derision. I thought I was bad, but you take it to new levels.
Shouldn't the streams of the unplugged versions be counted for the Unplugged album? I know for the sake of the method and comparability this is not desirable, but isn't it more fair with such a large number of a specific album with such specific versions together?
So defensive, as always...
From what I understand, you just don't want to "change the rules"? That's it? 😕 Do you at least agree that both versions are completely different? As opposed to both Tears In Heaven versions which are identical?
As for the Phil Collins thing, I was obviously referring to this :
"This total climbs to over 235 million with his early bands, excluding the part of the Yardbirds after he had left. It’s as much as Pink Floyd, and barely less than the Rolling Stones and Madonna."
You never said this about Phil Collins + Genesis while he was the singer/drummer/main songwriter as opposed to Clapton who was mostly just a guitarist in these bands, thats all I meant...
"Can’t you see that Layla acoustic, is obviously just a reworked version of Layla. It’s still Layla."
No it's not, I guess either you or I needs to see an ear specialist because these songs sound radically different to me.
And "angry bitterness", really? Is that what you guys call "criticism"?
I guess you haven't seen the list that I made here, best selling live albums :
Eric Clapton – Unplugged : 24m
Nirvana – MTV Unplugged In New York : 16m
Phil Collins – Serious Hits… Live! : 15m
AC/DC – Live : 15m
Eagles – Hell Freezes Over : 13m
Peter Frampton – Comes Alive : 13m
Led Zeppelin – The Song Remains The Same : 11m
Carreras Domingo Pavarotti – In Concert : 11m
Simon & Garfunkel – The Concert In Central Park : 10m
Garth Brooks – Double Live : 10m
U2 – Under A Blood Red Sky : 10m
So do the versions of Professional Widow. I know many remix versions of tracks that sound radically different to the original, yet they are still classed as the same songs.
It's the tone of your posts, not necessarily the criticism in them.
What do you mean "they are still classed as the same songs"? By who? If two songs are radically different from each other they shouldn't be classed as the same song, especially if the goal is to measure their success.
By record companies, publishers, artists, fans etc etc etc I didn't make the rules but it's clear what they are.
Look, Eric Clapton obviously sees it as a reworking of Layla, why else would he still call it Layla. Tori Amos, sees it as an almost different piece of work but still relates to it as Professional Widow.
I get your logical approach to this but ifs clear that the industry, artists, publishers etc still see these tracks as being the same song.
So defensive? Stop acting as a victim, please. You've been acting in an incredibly childish way for months, I don't even get why / how it started. Not sure what turned you on, but it's all over your comments, so no need to pretend all you are doing is objective criticism, especially when the "points" you bring involve as much nonsense as what you've been posting.
No, both versions are not completely different, at all. Just because a rock song is recorded in an acoustic way makes it another tune. There have been plenty of similar cases and you haven't bother at all. Aren't Sting acoustic / orchestra reworkings counted with originals? Yes, they are. But it hasn't bring a result you weren't expected so you haven't said a thing.
In case you haven't noticed, we changed rules countless of times. Unlike what you wish though, we do not change them cherry-picking results we don't like, applying them to one case only just because we feel it looks better.
I didn't knew that one single sentence, who's there barely to avoid users interested in knowing the total to go check 4 distinct articles by themselves and has no impact whatsoever in rankings from the site, would piss you off completely. Next time, for each sentence I write, I'll carefully check the 500+ articles backlog to make sure I phrased everything in the exact same way so that it pleases you. "Jesus", as someone would say.
And who says that both versions of Layla are "completely different" but that both versions of Tears in Heaven are "identical"? You? So basically, you are claiming to be the authority?
An acoustic is just that, an acoustic. Just because the original song was slow tempo already doesn't mean the acoustic version is "identical", just like the fact that the original was more uptempo doesn't mean the acoustic version is "completely different".
