"Gigaton" and its tracks on the charts

igotid88

vedpunk said:

Quick Escape should have been properly promoted to radio and a video made. 

I think they will or at least should. Do it in October. I also think they should release Take the Long Way.

mschostok

vedpunk said:

Quick Escape should have been properly promoted to radio and a video made. 

I agree wholeheartedly - but in all honesty, I really don't think they care about how well their album does on the Billboard 200 or if a single makes the Hot 100. While I would love to see that happen, to give them the credit and airtime they deserve, I think music itself and the way we consume that music has changed drastically, especially in the past seven years since LB. 

igotid88

mschostok said:

vedpunk said:

Quick Escape should have been properly promoted to radio and a video made. 

I agree wholeheartedly - but in all honesty, I really don't think they care about how well their album does on the Billboard 200 or if a single makes the Hot 100. While I would love to see that happen, to give them the credit and airtime they deserve, I think music itself and the way we consume that music has changed drastically, especially in the past seven years since LB. 

Yea but most of their fans don't stream. So they have put the music out there for newer fans to hear.

JimFletcherPearlJam

Does PJ get any sales credit each time I listen to Gigaton in its entirety through Alexa (Amazon Prime subscription)? I mean, I bought six physical copies of Gigaton (2 vinyl and 4 CD), but when I'm at home, it's easy to simply say "Alexa, play Gigaton by Pearl Jam." 

mschostok

igotid88 said:

mschostok said:

vedpunk said:

Quick Escape should have been properly promoted to radio and a video made. 

I agree wholeheartedly - but in all honesty, I really don't think they care about how well their album does on the Billboard 200 or if a single makes the Hot 100. While I would love to see that happen, to give them the credit and airtime they deserve, I think music itself and the way we consume that music has changed drastically, especially in the past seven years since LB. 

Yea but most of their fans don't stream. So they have put the music out there for newer fans to hear.

Right, that's my point. Music is mostly consumed by streaming now, which PJ and other rock bands struggle with - that's where acts like The Weeknd, Dua Lipa, etc. will prevail. Now, one can point to Tool and say that my argument fails - but their Fear Inoculum release is an outlier. I suspect you won't be seeing rock acts at or near the top of the Billboard charts for some time. 

BF25394

mschostok said:

igotid88 said:

mschostok said:

vedpunk said:

Quick Escape should have been properly promoted to radio and a video made. 

I agree wholeheartedly - but in all honesty, I really don't think they care about how well their album does on the Billboard 200 or if a single makes the Hot 100. While I would love to see that happen, to give them the credit and airtime they deserve, I think music itself and the way we consume that music has changed drastically, especially in the past seven years since LB. 

Yea but most of their fans don't stream. So they have put the music out there for newer fans to hear.

Right, that's my point. Music is mostly consumed by streaming now, which PJ and other rock bands struggle with - that's where acts like The Weeknd, Dua Lipa, etc. will prevail. Now, one can point to Tool and say that my argument fails - but their Fear Inoculum release is an outlier. I suspect you won't be seeing rock acts at or near the top of the Billboard charts for some time. 

It is not true that music is mostly consumed by streaming.  Believe it or not, the radio audience is still significantly larger than the streaming audience.  No Pearl Jam song is going to receive airplay on any CHR (i.e., Top 40) radio station in 2020. It's just not the world we live in.

It is true that rock artists do not fare as well in streaming as pop and hip-hop artists.  In part, this is because rock is still the best-selling genre for album sales.  There's no need to stream what you own, although the guy above who bought six copies of Gigaton but streams it through Alexa may beg to differ.

BF25394

mschostok said:

igotid88 said:

mschostok said:

vedpunk said:

Quick Escape should have been properly promoted to radio and a video made. 

I agree wholeheartedly - but in all honesty, I really don't think they care about how well their album does on the Billboard 200 or if a single makes the Hot 100. While I would love to see that happen, to give them the credit and airtime they deserve, I think music itself and the way we consume that music has changed drastically, especially in the past seven years since LB. 

Yea but most of their fans don't stream. So they have put the music out there for newer fans to hear.

Right, that's my point. Music is mostly consumed by streaming now, which PJ and other rock bands struggle with - that's where acts like The Weeknd, Dua Lipa, etc. will prevail. Now, one can point to Tool and say that my argument fails - but their Fear Inoculum release is an outlier. I suspect you won't be seeing rock acts at or near the top of the Billboard charts for some time. 

One more thing: you will see rock acts near the top of the Billboard 200 album chart, and you will especially see them near the top of the Top Album Sales chart.  (You'll also see them all over the Billboard rock charts.)

One more, one more thing: Dua Lipa is fantastic. Her two hit singles this year ("Break My Heart" and "Don't Start Now") are maybe the two best pop songs of 2020.

mschostok

BF25394 said:

mschostok said:

igotid88 said:

mschostok said:

vedpunk said:

Quick Escape should have been properly promoted to radio and a video made. 

I agree wholeheartedly - but in all honesty, I really don't think they care about how well their album does on the Billboard 200 or if a single makes the Hot 100. While I would love to see that happen, to give them the credit and airtime they deserve, I think music itself and the way we consume that music has changed drastically, especially in the past seven years since LB. 

Yea but most of their fans don't stream. So they have put the music out there for newer fans to hear.

Right, that's my point. Music is mostly consumed by streaming now, which PJ and other rock bands struggle with - that's where acts like The Weeknd, Dua Lipa, etc. will prevail. Now, one can point to Tool and say that my argument fails - but their Fear Inoculum release is an outlier. I suspect you won't be seeing rock acts at or near the top of the Billboard charts for some time. 

One more thing: you will see rock acts near the top of the Billboard 200 album chart, and you will especially see them near the top of the Top Album Sales chart.  (You'll also see them all over the Billboard rock charts.)

One more, one more thing: Dua Lipa is fantastic. Her two hit singles this year ("Break My Heart" and "Don't Start Now") are maybe the two best pop songs of 2020.

I'm not sure I agree with you re rock acts being at or near the top of the Billboard 200 chart, I just don't see it - I wish it wasn't so but, as you said, it's just not the world we live in. And yes, Dua Lipa's new album was pretty good, but not as good as Gigaton (speaking as objectively as I can). 

igotid88

JimFletcherPearlJam said:

Does PJ get any sales credit each time I listen to Gigaton in its entirety through Alexa (Amazon Prime subscription)? I mean, I bought six physical copies of Gigaton (2 vinyl and 4 CD), but when I'm at home, it's easy to simply say "Alexa, play Gigaton by Pearl Jam." 

Yes. Since you pay for streaming it will take 1500 spins of Gigaton to equal 1 album. Unless that number changed. But somewhere in that area.

JimFletcherPearlJam

Damn! That's a whole lot of listening to equal the sale of one unit. Oh well, it's better than nothing I guess. I'll obviously keep contributing to the cause in every way I can. Thanks! 

The Juggler

JimFletcherPearlJam said:

Damn! That's a whole lot of listening to equal the sale of one unit. Oh well, it's better than nothing I guess. I'll obviously keep contributing to the cause in every way I can. Thanks! 

Stop posting and start listening. GO ON! GET!

igotid88

JimFletcherPearlJam said:

Damn! That's a whole lot of listening to equal the sale of one unit. Oh well, it's better than nothing I guess. I'll obviously keep contributing to the cause in every way I can. Thanks! 

Yea some of these hip hop artists get 40 million streams a week for a song. 1 stream pays something like .00001 (I don't know the exact number)

BF25394

mschostok said:

BF25394 said:

mschostok said:

igotid88 said:

mschostok said:

vedpunk said:

Quick Escape should have been properly promoted to radio and a video made. 

I agree wholeheartedly - but in all honesty, I really don't think they care about how well their album does on the Billboard 200 or if a single makes the Hot 100. While I would love to see that happen, to give them the credit and airtime they deserve, I think music itself and the way we consume that music has changed drastically, especially in the past seven years since LB. 

Yea but most of their fans don't stream. So they have put the music out there for newer fans to hear.

Right, that's my point. Music is mostly consumed by streaming now, which PJ and other rock bands struggle with - that's where acts like The Weeknd, Dua Lipa, etc. will prevail. Now, one can point to Tool and say that my argument fails - but their Fear Inoculum release is an outlier. I suspect you won't be seeing rock acts at or near the top of the Billboard charts for some time. 

One more thing: you will see rock acts near the top of the Billboard 200 album chart, and you will especially see them near the top of the Top Album Sales chart.  (You'll also see them all over the Billboard rock charts.)

One more, one more thing: Dua Lipa is fantastic. Her two hit singles this year ("Break My Heart" and "Don't Start Now") are maybe the two best pop songs of 2020.

I'm not sure I agree with you re rock acts being at or near the top of the Billboard 200 chart, I just don't see it - I wish it wasn't so but, as you said, it's just not the world we live in. And yes, Dua Lipa's new album was pretty good, but not as good as Gigaton (speaking as objectively as I can). 

It's not a matter of opinion.  Well-known rock acts regularly debut at or near the top of the Billboard 200 on the strength of first-week sales alone.  In just the last several months, acts that have done this include The Who, Green Day, The Strokes, Fiona Apple, The 1975 and Bob Dylan (just two weeks ago).

EDIT: Oh, and Pearl Jam also did this recently! How did I forget them?!  That's now my second mini-stroke in this thread.

mschostok

BF25394 said:

mschostok said:

BF25394 said:

mschostok said:

igotid88 said:

mschostok said:

vedpunk said:

Quick Escape should have been properly promoted to radio and a video made. 

I agree wholeheartedly - but in all honesty, I really don't think they care about how well their album does on the Billboard 200 or if a single makes the Hot 100. While I would love to see that happen, to give them the credit and airtime they deserve, I think music itself and the way we consume that music has changed drastically, especially in the past seven years since LB. 

Yea but most of their fans don't stream. So they have put the music out there for newer fans to hear.

Right, that's my point. Music is mostly consumed by streaming now, which PJ and other rock bands struggle with - that's where acts like The Weeknd, Dua Lipa, etc. will prevail. Now, one can point to Tool and say that my argument fails - but their Fear Inoculum release is an outlier. I suspect you won't be seeing rock acts at or near the top of the Billboard charts for some time. 

One more thing: you will see rock acts near the top of the Billboard 200 album chart, and you will especially see them near the top of the Top Album Sales chart.  (You'll also see them all over the Billboard rock charts.)

One more, one more thing: Dua Lipa is fantastic. Her two hit singles this year ("Break My Heart" and "Don't Start Now") are maybe the two best pop songs of 2020.

I'm not sure I agree with you re rock acts being at or near the top of the Billboard 200 chart, I just don't see it - I wish it wasn't so but, as you said, it's just not the world we live in. And yes, Dua Lipa's new album was pretty good, but not as good as Gigaton (speaking as objectively as I can). 

It's not a matter of opinion.  Well-known rock acts regularly debut at or near the top of the Billboard 200 on the strength of first-week sales alone.  In just the last several months, acts that have done this include The Who, Green Day, The Strokes, Fiona Apple, The 1975 and Bob Dylan (just two weeks ago).

EDIT: Oh, and Pearl Jam also did this recently! How did I forget them?!  That's now my second mini-stroke in this thread.

I guess we have different definitions of "at or near the top." I define mine has around the top 2, maybe 3. Green Day was 4, the Strokes were 8, Fiona Apple was 4, The 1975 was 4, and The Who and Tool are outliers considering the length of time between their records and the strength of their fan base (Gigaton perhaps would have been 1 or 2 but for Covid for all of the reasons stated above). And you're right, Dylan was 2, surprisingly. My point is, it's extremely difficult for rock artists to compete with pop and hip/hop artists today, especially given the strength and ubiquity of streaming. And that's all presuming Fiona Apple and The 1975 are considered rock acts (I do not). Lastly, only one of those artists were number 1 on the Blbd 200 - and that's Tool, which was in August of 2019. 

BF25394

mschostok said:

BF25394 said:

mschostok said:

BF25394 said:

mschostok said:

igotid88 said:

mschostok said:

vedpunk said:

Quick Escape should have been properly promoted to radio and a video made. 

I agree wholeheartedly - but in all honesty, I really don't think they care about how well their album does on the Billboard 200 or if a single makes the Hot 100. While I would love to see that happen, to give them the credit and airtime they deserve, I think music itself and the way we consume that music has changed drastically, especially in the past seven years since LB. 

Yea but most of their fans don't stream. So they have put the music out there for newer fans to hear.

Right, that's my point. Music is mostly consumed by streaming now, which PJ and other rock bands struggle with - that's where acts like The Weeknd, Dua Lipa, etc. will prevail. Now, one can point to Tool and say that my argument fails - but their Fear Inoculum release is an outlier. I suspect you won't be seeing rock acts at or near the top of the Billboard charts for some time. 

One more thing: you will see rock acts near the top of the Billboard 200 album chart, and you will especially see them near the top of the Top Album Sales chart.  (You'll also see them all over the Billboard rock charts.)

One more, one more thing: Dua Lipa is fantastic. Her two hit singles this year ("Break My Heart" and "Don't Start Now") are maybe the two best pop songs of 2020.

I'm not sure I agree with you re rock acts being at or near the top of the Billboard 200 chart, I just don't see it - I wish it wasn't so but, as you said, it's just not the world we live in. And yes, Dua Lipa's new album was pretty good, but not as good as Gigaton (speaking as objectively as I can). 

It's not a matter of opinion.  Well-known rock acts regularly debut at or near the top of the Billboard 200 on the strength of first-week sales alone.  In just the last several months, acts that have done this include The Who, Green Day, The Strokes, Fiona Apple, The 1975 and Bob Dylan (just two weeks ago).

EDIT: Oh, and Pearl Jam also did this recently! How did I forget them?!  That's now my second mini-stroke in this thread.

I guess we have different definitions of "at or near the top." I define mine has around the top 2, maybe 3. Green Day was 4, the Strokes were 8, Fiona Apple was 4, The 1975 was 4, and The Who and Tool are outliers considering the length of time between their records and the strength of their fan base (Gigaton perhaps would have been 1 or 2 but for Covid for all of the reasons stated above). And you're right, Dylan was 2, surprisingly. My point is, it's extremely difficult for rock artists to compete with pop and hip/hop artists today, especially given the strength and ubiquity of streaming. 

These were seven examples off the top of my head, for the record.  I could go back and list more examples, including ones in the top three. Do you really think there is that much of a difference between No. 3 and No. 4 for purposes of this discussion? The biggest factor in where an album debuts on the Billboard 200, aside from sales or streaming, is often what other albums came out that week or the week before, which is luck.

And you can't just write off examples that contradict your thesis for arbitrary reasons (i.e., length of time between records and strength of fan base)?  They're rock acts that charted at or near the top of the Billboard 200.  They count.

 

mschostok

BF25394 said:

mschostok said:

BF25394 said:

mschostok said:

BF25394 said:

mschostok said:

igotid88 said:

mschostok said:

vedpunk said:

Quick Escape should have been properly promoted to radio and a video made. 

I agree wholeheartedly - but in all honesty, I really don't think they care about how well their album does on the Billboard 200 or if a single makes the Hot 100. While I would love to see that happen, to give them the credit and airtime they deserve, I think music itself and the way we consume that music has changed drastically, especially in the past seven years since LB. 

Yea but most of their fans don't stream. So they have put the music out there for newer fans to hear.

Right, that's my point. Music is mostly consumed by streaming now, which PJ and other rock bands struggle with - that's where acts like The Weeknd, Dua Lipa, etc. will prevail. Now, one can point to Tool and say that my argument fails - but their Fear Inoculum release is an outlier. I suspect you won't be seeing rock acts at or near the top of the Billboard charts for some time. 

One more thing: you will see rock acts near the top of the Billboard 200 album chart, and you will especially see them near the top of the Top Album Sales chart.  (You'll also see them all over the Billboard rock charts.)

One more, one more thing: Dua Lipa is fantastic. Her two hit singles this year ("Break My Heart" and "Don't Start Now") are maybe the two best pop songs of 2020.

I'm not sure I agree with you re rock acts being at or near the top of the Billboard 200 chart, I just don't see it - I wish it wasn't so but, as you said, it's just not the world we live in. And yes, Dua Lipa's new album was pretty good, but not as good as Gigaton (speaking as objectively as I can). 

It's not a matter of opinion.  Well-known rock acts regularly debut at or near the top of the Billboard 200 on the strength of first-week sales alone.  In just the last several months, acts that have done this include The Who, Green Day, The Strokes, Fiona Apple, The 1975 and Bob Dylan (just two weeks ago).

EDIT: Oh, and Pearl Jam also did this recently! How did I forget them?!  That's now my second mini-stroke in this thread.

I guess we have different definitions of "at or near the top." I define mine has around the top 2, maybe 3. Green Day was 4, the Strokes were 8, Fiona Apple was 4, The 1975 was 4, and The Who and Tool are outliers considering the length of time between their records and the strength of their fan base (Gigaton perhaps would have been 1 or 2 but for Covid for all of the reasons stated above). And you're right, Dylan was 2, surprisingly. My point is, it's extremely difficult for rock artists to compete with pop and hip/hop artists today, especially given the strength and ubiquity of streaming. 

These were seven examples off the top of my head, for the record.  I could go back and list more examples, including ones in the top three. Do you really think there is that much of a difference between No. 3 and No. 4 for purposes of this discussion? The biggest factor in where an album debuts on the Billboard 200, aside from sales or streaming, is often what other albums came out that week or the week before, which is luck.

And you can't just write off examples that contradict your thesis for arbitrary reasons (i.e., length of time between records and strength of fan base)?  They're rock acts that charted at or near the top of the Billboard 200.  They count.

 

I never wrote them off nor said they didn't count, hence why I listed them as well. But as I said, they're outliers, anomalies, exceptions to the rule. This is an honest question, not a gotcha question: when was the last rock act to top #1 on the Billboard 200 since Tool in August of 2019? I can't think of any unless you know of some. But what I do know is that The Weeknd stayed atop of the Billboard 200 for quite some time, as did Post Malone, Billie Eilish, Harry Styles, etc.

Again, I think you're missing my argument - I'm not saying any of those acts aren't good (I really like Billie Eilish and the Weeknd) nor am I saying rock is dead (some argue that). What I'm saying is the days of rock bands charting "at or near the top" of the Billboard 200 (that is, topping it at #1 or #2) are probably gone with the exception of a few acts here or there (see Who and Tool) - I wish that wasn't the case, but it truly looks like it to me. And the reasons for that are that streaming is heavily favored as the medium in which to consume music. You cannot argue with that. It's convenient, it's accessible, it's in everybody's pocket, literally. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, but it is what it is. And when you stream one song a million times, that counts for however many album sales for the Billboard 200 (see aforementioned pop artists that put out "albums" when only two songs get played). Whereas rock acts rely heavily on pure, physical album sales to generate their position on the charts. Due to this, it is my opinion that rock acts topping the Billboard 200 chart at #1 or 2 is going to be happening less and less.

In fact, this very phenomenon has been well documented. See https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/what-will-billboards-new-streaming-rules-really-mean-124168/ and https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/743775196/the-success-of-streaming-has-been-great-for-some-but-is-there-a-better-way

BF25394

mschostok said:

I never wrote them off nor said they didn't count, hence why I listed them as well. But as I said, they're outliers, anomalies, exceptions to the rule. This is an honest question, not a gotcha question: when was the last rock act to top #1 on the Billboard 200 since Tool in August of 2019? I can't think of any unless you know of some. But what I do know is that The Weeknd stayed atop of the Billboard 200 for quite some time, as did Post Malone, Billie Eilish, Harry Styles, etc.

Again, I think you're missing my argument - I'm not saying any of those acts aren't good (I really like Billie Eilish and the Weeknd) nor am I saying rock is dead (some argue that). What I'm saying is the days of rock bands charting "at or near the top" of the Billboard 200 (that is, topping it at #1 or #2) are probably gone with the exception of a few acts here or there (see Who and Tool) - I wish that wasn't the case, but it truly looks like it to me. And the reasons for that are that streaming is heavily favored as the medium in which to consume music. You cannot argue with that. It's convenient, it's accessible, it's in everybody's pocket, literally. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, but it is what it is. And when you stream one song a million times, that counts for however many album sales for the Billboard 200 (see aforementioned pop artists that put out "albums" when only two songs get played). Whereas rock acts rely heavily on pure, physical album sales to generate their position on the charts. Due to this, it is my opinion that rock acts topping the Billboard 200 chart at #1 or 2 is going to be happening less and less.

In fact, this very phenomenon has been well documented. See https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/what-will-billboards-new-streaming-rules-really-mean-124168/ and https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/743775196/the-success-of-streaming-has-been-great-for-some-but-is-there-a-better-way

Well, I take exception to the idea that there's any meaningful difference between No. 2 and No. 3 or No. 3 and No. 4 for purposes of this discussion.  Agree to disagree, I guess, although it obviously makes a difference to the argument.  The more narrowly you define the parameters of the kind of chart success you're describing, the fewer acts will meet the threshold.

I didn't take you to be saying anything qualitatively about pop music.  And "pop" is a broad category anyway, with genre lines more blurred than ever.  Billie Eilish is actually very widely played on alternative-rock radio stations.  You could argue that Harry Styles is a rock artist, although he doesn't get played on rock stations.  His first solo album sounded like a classic rock album, as was observed by a number of reviewers.

You said: "What I'm saying is the days of rock bands charting "at or near the top" of the Billboard 200 (that is, topping it at #1 or #2) are probably gone with the exception of a few acts here or there (see Who and Tool) - I wish that wasn't the case, but it truly looks like it to me. And the reasons for that are that streaming is heavily favored as the medium in which to consume music. You cannot argue with that."

I can argue with that.  First of all, as noted earlier, streaming is not heavily favored as the medium in which to consume music.  That is still radio.  Radio is literally free and everywhere, and its aggregate audience is still much larger than the total streaming audience.  When you say that streaming is in everyone's pockets, literally, you overstate things.  First of all, a not-insignificant percentage of the population (about 20 percent) does not have a smartphone.  Second, a non-insignificant percentage of smartphone owners do not use any streaming service, for reasons of preference, cost or access. (Many Americans live in places with spotty Internet connectivity and cannot rely on streaming services for music delivery.)  Having said all that, it's true that streaming is a favored medium as compared to sales-- but that is much less true for rock acts than it is for pop and hip-hop acts.  The issue is that Billboard's formulas for the Billboard 200 (and the Hot 100) grossly overweight streaming.  This is an impediment for rock acts, to be sure-- no matter how many times I listen to my CD of Gigaton in my home or in my car) Billboard cannot track it beyond the sale, and the audience for pop and hip-hop acts are much more likely to consume music through streaming than via physical or digital product they purchased-- but it is still the case that there are dozens of prominent rock acts with a large enough fan base to generate first-week sales sufficient to chart at or near the top of the Billboard 200, at least based on my admittedly looser definition of what that means, less so by your very strict definition.

I think we're more in agreement than my posts might make it seem. We're just applying different standards.  I definitely agree with your implicit criticism of the Billboard 200's inclusion of consumption of individual tracks as "album consumption."  Unfortunately, both the Billboard 200 and the Hot 100 are problematic-- for several reasons, but one of which is that they're counting the popularity of individual songs on the album chart, and they're counting album consumption toward the singles chart.  When 19 Pop Smoke songs chart on the Hot 100 by virtue of the album debuting this week, and then immediately drop off the Hot 100 next week, that is not a sign of "popular" or "hit" songs in the sense that the Hot 100 has historically aimed to measure.  That is just a function of curiosity about a new release.  Now one might argue that this is no different than albums debuting high on the album chart in their first week.  The difference is that the Billboard 200, at least until they started to count streaming in 2014, never claimed to be a measure of "popularity" like the Hot 100 (the Hot 100 is described on the chart itself as a list of "the most popular songs across all genres").  The Billboard 200 was strictly a measure of sales.  Now it's a mish-mash.  They even count YouTube plays on the Billboard 200 now!

Sorry to have gone off on a rant here.  As someone who has tracked these charts for 40 years and subscribed to Billboard for much of that time, it pains me to see the charts so screwed up but also never more widely disseminated and cited as the standard.

mschostok

BF25394 said:

mschostok said:

I never wrote them off nor said they didn't count, hence why I listed them as well. But as I said, they're outliers, anomalies, exceptions to the rule. This is an honest question, not a gotcha question: when was the last rock act to top #1 on the Billboard 200 since Tool in August of 2019? I can't think of any unless you know of some. But what I do know is that The Weeknd stayed atop of the Billboard 200 for quite some time, as did Post Malone, Billie Eilish, Harry Styles, etc.

Again, I think you're missing my argument - I'm not saying any of those acts aren't good (I really like Billie Eilish and the Weeknd) nor am I saying rock is dead (some argue that). What I'm saying is the days of rock bands charting "at or near the top" of the Billboard 200 (that is, topping it at #1 or #2) are probably gone with the exception of a few acts here or there (see Who and Tool) - I wish that wasn't the case, but it truly looks like it to me. And the reasons for that are that streaming is heavily favored as the medium in which to consume music. You cannot argue with that. It's convenient, it's accessible, it's in everybody's pocket, literally. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, but it is what it is. And when you stream one song a million times, that counts for however many album sales for the Billboard 200 (see aforementioned pop artists that put out "albums" when only two songs get played). Whereas rock acts rely heavily on pure, physical album sales to generate their position on the charts. Due to this, it is my opinion that rock acts topping the Billboard 200 chart at #1 or 2 is going to be happening less and less.

In fact, this very phenomenon has been well documented. See https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/what-will-billboards-new-streaming-rules-really-mean-124168/ and https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/743775196/the-success-of-streaming-has-been-great-for-some-but-is-there-a-better-way

Well, I take exception to the idea that there's any meaningful difference between No. 2 and No. 3 or No. 3 and No. 4 for purposes of this discussion.  Agree to disagree, I guess, although it obviously makes a difference to the argument.  The more narrowly you define the parameters of the kind of chart success you're describing, the fewer acts will meet the threshold.

I didn't take you to be saying anything qualitatively about pop music.  And "pop" is a broad category anyway, with genre lines more blurred than ever.  Billie Eilish is actually very widely played on alternative-rock radio stations.  You could argue that Harry Styles is a rock artist, although he doesn't get played on rock stations.  His first solo album sounded like a classic rock album, as was observed by a number of reviewers.

You said: "What I'm saying is the days of rock bands charting "at or near the top" of the Billboard 200 (that is, topping it at #1 or #2) are probably gone with the exception of a few acts here or there (see Who and Tool) - I wish that wasn't the case, but it truly looks like it to me. And the reasons for that are that streaming is heavily favored as the medium in which to consume music. You cannot argue with that."

I can argue with that.  First of all, as noted earlier, streaming is not heavily favored as the medium in which to consume music.  That is still radio.  Radio is literally free and everywhere, and its aggregate audience is still much larger than the total streaming audience.  When you say that streaming is in everyone's pockets, literally, you overstate things.  First of all, a not-insignificant percentage of the population (about 20 percent) does not have a smartphone.  Second, a non-insignificant percentage of smartphone owners do not use any streaming service, for reasons of preference, cost or access. (Many Americans live in places with spotty Internet connectivity and cannot rely on streaming services for music delivery.)  Having said all that, it's true that streaming is a favored medium as compared to sales-- but that is much less true for rock acts than it is for pop and hip-hop acts.  The issue is that Billboard's formulas for the Billboard 200 (and the Hot 100) grossly overweight streaming.  This is an impediment for rock acts, to be sure-- no matter how many times I listen to my CD of Gigaton in my home or in my car) Billboard cannot track it beyond the sale, and the audience for pop and hip-hop acts are much more likely to consume music through streaming than via physical or digital product they purchased-- but it is still the case that there are dozens of prominent rock acts with a large enough fan base to generate first-week sales sufficient to chart at or near the top of the Billboard 200, at least based on my admittedly looser definition of what that means, less so by your very strict definition.

I think we're more in agreement than my posts might make it seem. We're just applying different standards.  I definitely agree with your implicit criticism of the Billboard 200's inclusion of consumption of individual tracks as "album consumption."  Unfortunately, both the Billboard 200 and the Hot 100 are problematic-- for several reasons, but one of which is that they're counting the popularity of individual songs on the album chart, and they're counting album consumption toward the singles chart.  When 19 Pop Smoke songs chart on the Hot 100 by virtue of the album debuting this week, and then immediately drop off the Hot 100 next week, that is not a sign of "popular" or "hit" songs in the sense that the Hot 100 has historically aimed to measure.  That is just a function of curiosity about a new release.  Now one might argue that this is no different than albums debuting high on the album chart in their first week.  The difference is that the Billboard 200, at least until they started to count streaming in 2014, never claimed to be a measure of "popularity" like the Hot 100 (the Hot 100 is described on the chart itself as a list of "the most popular songs across all genres").  The Billboard 200 was strictly a measure of sales.  Now it's a mish-mash.  They even count YouTube plays on the Billboard 200 now!

Sorry to have gone off on a rant here.  As someone who has tracked these charts for 40 years and subscribed to Billboard for much of that time, it pains me to see the charts so screwed up but also never more widely disseminated and cited as the standard.

Lol, no we're definitely arguing the same thing, with the exception of some semantics here and there. I'm not sure why I'm letting the Billboard 200 get to me but it does - I'd like to see Pearl Jam and other great artists recognized and get the attention they deserve for putting out fantastic, cohesive albums - not an "album" that contains one or two popular songs that the entire world will stream. It's frustrating.

achildofthe70s

I'm in Chattanooga. We had DOTC on the day it came out but NOTHING since. At least from what I have heard. Not one track played at all. 

JimFletcherPearlJam

Hey, at least we have Sirius XM's Pearl Jam radio channel (#22). I suppose the band can't complain when seemingly every new vehicle sold comes with a free subscription to Sirius XM and a radio station dedicated exclusively to our favorite band. I even have access to Sirius channel 22 through my Dish Network TV subscription at home. It seems as though I'm surrounded by PJ everywhere I go.