How come only modern, mainstream music gets ridiculously large amounts of views on Youtube? (lyrics, alternative)

[dashrendar4454]

if you look at old school music or even currrent indie pop type they can get decent amounts of views but only the modern mainstream pop and rap stuff can get ridiculous amounts of views like the 1 billion range. Why do you think so?

[ByeByeLW]

Google David V Stewart ( not the Eurythmics guy) and he’s got lots of great discussions and YouTube’s on this.
In a sense, though, you answered your own question. It’s “pop” music. YouTube is no longer some kind of alternative universe. For a brief moment it was..

I ask the kids at work why they listen to this as they’re not exactly a bunch of gangsters.
There’s really no big answer.

Pop music and mainstream rap are all over the place. In ads, at stores, movies, tv- it’s a kind of brainwashing. Music producers can no longer risk money on uncertain things. That’s why so many things sound alike.

Personally I find some of the lyrics of Young Scooter and Young Dolph to be pretty amazing.
Young Dolph prides himself on being an independent artist and claims to have turned down a 22 million dollar deal.
How much did I really have in common with the characters depicted in hair metal back in the day? Not much. Lots of disrespect for women in many of those songs too.


I guess television is an influence too. Shows like Power, Empire, etc. are very popular.

[William Taylor]

Originally Posted by dashrendar4454

if you look at old school music or even currrent indie pop type they can get decent amounts of views but only the modern mainstream pop and rap stuff can get ridiculous amounts of views like the 1 billion range. Why do you think so?

Because no one's hardly buying today's music, and a lot of it is counted based upon streaming and YouTube views?

Also, below is the quote of the last two paragraphs of a Rolling Stone article about this, where the preceding part of the article gave me a slight headache.

What does that all mean? Streaming, the biggest form of music consumption these days, was already the most dominant factor in Billboard’s charts – so the changes are expected to have significant impact, especially in the albums chart where a stream on a paid service like Apple Music will count for three times as much as a stream on Spotify’s free tier.

Because the new rules disfavor ad-supported services, they might upend certain artists or genres that pull in most of their listens from YouTube. But putting together all these methods of listening into one system remains a tricky matter, and the charts still have their share of critics. “Billboard could have a free chart if they want, but the chart that people argue for, that they strive to be Number One on, has to be a real chart,” Apple Music head Jimmy Iovine told Rolling Stone in December. “Otherwise, they’re mixing – no pun intended – apples and oranges.”

Music’s New Chart Rules Care – a Lot – About Whether You’re Paying to Listen

Also, see...

Billboard is changing how it counts music streams in its charts - The Diamondback

And another article which also criticizes how music sales were counted in the past...

Billboard’s charts used to be our barometer for music success. Are they meaningless in the streaming age?

[good_deal_maker]

Originally Posted by dashrendar4454

if you look at old school music or even currrent indie pop type they can get decent amounts of views but only the modern mainstream pop and rap stuff can get ridiculous amounts of views like the 1 billion range. Why do you think so?

The target audience of the modern hits are young people mainly. They have a lot of free time and listen to their smartphones. And they want to be "a modern boy or a modern girl". What is a need for them to listen old songs?

Here we mean the fashion in music. But we all know that the best song isn't "Gangnum style" though it has 10 billions views. The opinion of a crowd isn't the main argument.