Printable version of thread

Posted by: Jαsє 22nd August 2019, 10:51 PM

People buy and consume music in many different ways now, and that's changed the calculus of hits! I'm curious what others deem to be a 'flop' in a time when how we listen to music is always changing and evolving.

Discuss!

Posted by: 365 22nd August 2019, 11:06 PM

It's hard to say. It really depends on the artist and how much longevity a song has. Like 'Needed Me' didn't chart very well at all but is a smash. But, say, 'word up' by little Mix charted at 6 and it's a flop.

Posted by: Medellíam 22nd August 2019, 11:07 PM

Depends on the artist. For some, making the Top 100 is a triumph whereas missing out on the Top 40 would be a disaster for others.

Also, particularly in the streaming era, songs can be bigger hits than their peaks suggest. Basically, it's down to context as to whether a song has been a hit or not, rather than "it reached x so it's a success / it reached y so it's a flop".

Posted by: No Sleeep 22nd August 2019, 11:12 PM

I mean, it's all relative to the artist. #38 for Kylie and #87 for Madonna is a triumph but Spirit peaking at #59 for Beyonce is embarrassing.

Posted by: slowdown73 22nd August 2019, 11:32 PM

Chart positions in the singles chart don’t mean much anymore. A song can still hang around and not peak inside the T40 but sell a reasonable amount in comparison to singles released pre-streaming era.

Posted by: cantthinkofaname 22nd August 2019, 11:58 PM

This (for the most part - not sure I agree on #87 for Madonna being a triumph but other than that). It's always relative to the artist in question. Ed Sheeran making #16 with a short chart run would be a flop compared to what people were expecting but yeah a Madonna or Kylie single going Top 40 in this day and age would be exceeding everyone's expectations so I guess I consider a song a flop if it does far worse than predicted.

Posted by: Feel_The_Fever 23rd August 2019, 12:16 AM

I agree, for someone like kylie going top 100 now I see as a success but years ago a single missing the top 10 would be a flop.

Posted by: davidas 23rd August 2019, 10:20 AM

Failing to make top 40 for me.

Posted by: Jordan Lee 23rd August 2019, 10:40 AM

Yeah it’s all down to the artist and the song in question as well.

Beyoncé’s Spirit was a good example there. That missing the top 40 with the huge deal that it’s in the Lion King shows it was a big underperformance. But Madonna actually making the top 100 with Medellin was a bit of a success for her.

It really all depends on the artist like say if a lead single by someone like Rihanna, Ariana or Ed or Drake missed the top 5 it would seem like it was a flop but Katy’s Never Really Over going to #12 didn’t seem too bad.

It’s harder to tell what is a flop now a days though with streaming. In the pre stream chart days it was rare a lead single or pre album single would peak a good 7/8 weeks into their chart run where as now it’s normal. The pre streaming days also had pre orders and hype before a release but often with shorter chart runs as the bulk of the sales came in like the first 3 weeks.

There’s times now where we look at specific artists biggest singles charts and see songs what went to #1 back in the day being outsold by songs what just about made top 40 or in some cases missed the top 40 I’m sure Eminem has a #70 something song what’s outsold one of his #1s.

But yeah it all depends on the artist. I go more by longevity these days rather than peak position.

Posted by: Tawdry Hepburn 23rd August 2019, 11:29 AM

I think in relative terms, something that vastly underperforms compared to what would be expected of it (In this day and age). Something like 'Small Talk' probably being a perfect current example.

Posted by: Cqmerqn 23rd August 2019, 11:50 AM

It depends on the artist, type of song, level of promo etc..

I’d consider Never Really Over a smash for Katy (#12), yet Boyfriend by Ariana (#4) is an underperformance.

Posted by: pippa 23rd August 2019, 12:03 PM

My same thoughts.

Posted by: JosephAvery 23rd August 2019, 01:30 PM

Definitely agree that it's dependent on the artist and the context of their career. Obviously a few years ago, #12 for a Katy lead would look disastrous but considering everything that happened between Chained and NRO, it performed very strongly and outdid expectations! I don't think anything going top 40 could be truly called a flop (unless like, Adele or Ed Sheeran crashed in at #28 with their next singles), though there's a definite line between flop and underperformance. Ariana's boyfriend is an underperformance, but by no means a flop!

Posted by: Wall 23rd August 2019, 03:36 PM

I wouldn’t say Boyfriend at #4 is an underperformance, she never really pushed it as much as her other singles on social media

Posted by: Dmdr 23rd August 2019, 03:54 PM

Ultimately I judge a song's performance on how it sells, who cares about a chart position if you don't sell much in the long run.

I think You Are The Reason by Calum/Leona is a great example as it never went Top 40 in the UK but has still been certified Gold.

And its the same story in multiple countries, never charted in the US but is platinum, 3x platinum in Australia, 2x platinum in Canada. So a chart position can be very misleading on how a song performed.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 23rd August 2019, 04:57 PM

'Ellie Goulding'.

Posted by: JosephAvery 23rd August 2019, 05:02 PM

It's not an absolutely huge underperformance, but she had 3 consecutive #1s recently so for a brand new Ariana track, hyped with a music video release, to not even challenge for #1 is a slight underperformance. MONOPOLY is a far bigger one though, that's more in "flop" territory!

Posted by: GTH 23rd August 2019, 05:23 PM

Top 40 is the grade for me, but as others have mentioned it is all contextual based on the artists popularity at the time. Genre also plays a role too (for example, rock does not get much attention from streaming so a top 75 song would be a more appropriate grade to me).

Posted by: jimwatts 23rd August 2019, 10:40 PM

Song by an act you don't like doesn't do well = flop
Song by an act you like doesn't do well = underperformance
Song by an act you love doesn't do well = not high enough on Spotify playlists
End of discussion.

Seriously though, who is to judge what is a flop and what isn't? People like Beyonce and Ed Sheeran can do whatever they like right now, she doesn't need to keep remaking Halo 2019 to get more top 10 hits.

Posted by: Cqmerqn 23rd August 2019, 11:02 PM

Oh, come ON...

Posted by: Izzy 24th August 2019, 12:25 AM

No such thing in recent times I’d argue. Or at least much less than before. Streaming helps that, songs can gain legacies completely unrelated to their chart performance now.

It’s also a lot more complex than chart positions, how it does in all countries is more relevant than a low peak in one, and overall streaming numbers are way more indicative.

Posted by: Dircadirca 24th August 2019, 06:34 AM

A lot of the time it's hard to tell because of no shortage of blurred lines. The case that always comes to mind for me is how Taylor Swift's "reputation" was obviously nowhere near as successful as its predecessor and the singles ("Delicate" aside) all had anchors attached to their chart runs, but it was still the #1 album of 2018 on Billboard so how can you file it?

I think the best metric can work with is when artists/labels sweep it under the rug, effectively acknowledging that the reception was more muted and/or negative than anticipated. Like pretending a genuine statement you made was a joke after the fact, the phrase 'promo single' can do a lot of leg work.

Posted by: No Sleeep 24th August 2019, 12:25 PM

I’d still call Reputation a flop, for her. Because it came after 1989. The best way to judge if something is a flop is to compare it to the last release. Obviously I’d kill for Britney to sell that much lol but it’s a massive decline which is pretty much the definition of a flop

Posted by: JosephAvery 24th August 2019, 12:41 PM

I think this is where the distinction between flop and underperformance is necessary. reputation was not a flop by any means - it was a platinum selling album in the UK and still sold 1m+ in week 1 alone in the US (a rare achievement in the first place that's become even rarer with album sales going down). It was a big album, just not as big as 1989 and therefore could be seen as an underperformance.

Posted by: danG 24th August 2019, 12:45 PM

in most cases I’d say top 40 but it depends, many non top 40s obviously aren’t flops and some that do briefly make it can’t really be called hits either.

Posted by: No Sleeep 24th August 2019, 01:26 PM

I don't think there's much of a difference though. It was absolutely the worst case scenario following from 1989, just because it still sold 100000x more than 99% of artists ever will doesn't mean it wasn't a flop. Selling less than 50% of what your previous album sold has got to be a flop

Posted by: Dmdr 24th August 2019, 01:37 PM

I really don't agree with that, I think there is a huge difference between an under-performance and a flop. How can the second best selling album in the world and the 1st in America in 2017 be a flop? Its ridiculous to even try and sell it as such, okay it never sold as much as her previous but it still shifted massive units and made a tonne of money, so it under-performed compared to her last.

Posted by: No Sleeep 24th August 2019, 01:41 PM

It's a flop for Taylor Swift's standards which are incredibly high, what is so hard to understand about that? Just like Erotica and Bedtime Stories were flops for Madonna

Posted by: JosephAvery 24th August 2019, 01:42 PM

100% agreed! It's also worth considering that albums as massive as 1989 are rare. It was her Teenage Dream moment, and even the biggest artists can't maintain their absolute peak stardom like that. Ed Sheeran's seeing a comedown from Divide with his current project, even Adele saw a comedown from 21 to 25 despite it still being absolutely massive!

Posted by: Dmdr 24th August 2019, 01:48 PM

No it under-performed for Taylor, it didn't flop.

Another Leona example, sorry.

Spirit - 3,000,000 -Huge seller but rare to sell so much.
Echo - 750,000 - Under performed, more in line of what other big names sold.
Glassheart - 90,000 - Flop

Echo under-performed for Leona but still was a big seller and made a tonne of money, despite being out for only 6 weeks in 2009 it still was the 15th biggest seller in the UK. Glassheart flopped, it made a loss for the label. There is a difference.

Posted by: No Sleeep 24th August 2019, 01:52 PM

And I agree the others underperformed but didn't flop, however Taylor didn't have any hit close to Hello or Dark Horse/Roar or I Don't Care with Reputation. LWYMMD debuted at #1 and disappeared. And I don't remember Adele or Katy selling less than 50% of Teenage Dream or 21. Taylor just kept building and building with every era so for her to release her lowest selling album ever after her biggest era ever... "underperformance" is a very kind word

Posted by: No Sleeep 24th August 2019, 01:52 PM

I'm pretty sure Echo was still labelled a flop at the time

Posted by: SKOB 24th August 2019, 01:58 PM

Based on this thread EVERYONE flops all the time as it seems there are only successes and flops on earth.

Wonder how anyone still has a record deal after all this flopping.

Posted by: JosephAvery 24th August 2019, 01:59 PM

Look What You Made Me Do has sold over 700k. It wasn't her biggest hit ever but it was perfectly substantial. ...Ready For It? was a top 10 hit too, and while it didn't crack the top 40, Delicate showed impressive longevity considering how late it was in quite a messily-handled campaign. "Flop" suggests it didn't connect with the wider public at all, when reputation obviously did. It's also not her lowest selling album ever - it's comfortably outsold the self-titled debut and Speak Now. reputation is a platinum album as I said before, one of the biggest albums of 2017, accompanied by a record-breaking global stadium tour. I wish the rest of my favourite artists would have flops on this scale!

Posted by: No Sleeep 24th August 2019, 02:08 PM

Actually no, it hasn't outsold her debut or Speak Now, Reputation's sales are just under 5 million. You're not getting my point It was a HUGE decline from 1989, which is the definition of a flop to me. In this context, yes, a platinum album is a flop. To go from selling 10 million and having 5 massive multi-platinum hits to selling not even 5 million and barely being able to scrape the top 10 is a flop. Yes, it's possible to have the biggest album of the year and still flop IN THIS CONTEXT

Posted by: SKOB 24th August 2019, 02:11 PM

Also

Posted by: No Sleeep 24th August 2019, 02:14 PM

A frontloaded chart run of 1-1-3-4-9-12-14-20-24-51-OUT is atrocious for a 2017 hit. It didn't connect with the public at all, of course she has a huge fanbase and a big gimmicky video that made it so huge at the beginning but it only spent 10 weeks in the top 75 so obviously the hype wasn't enough to sustain it

Posted by: JosephAvery 24th August 2019, 02:18 PM

^ it's worth noting that it went to ACR when it fell 24-51 then dropped out prematurely as a result of the 3 track rule. It wasn't a great run anyway but it was by no means bad and it's managed some great sales long-term.

Oh you meant in the US, I was talking UK, my apologies.

I am getting your point though, and I think you're missing the big picture. It's really not as clear cut as what you're saying and I don't think the biggest album of the year could EVER be a flop. This is why it's important to distinguish between flop and underperformance. An example of a flop in my eyes: 365 by Zedd & Katy Perry. Two big names, a commercial song and it scraped the top 40 here and was lucky to make the Hot 100 at all in the US. It never picked up after that. When a tag like "flop" is applied to something like 365, it really doesn't belong anywhere near reputation, which was an "underperformance" compared to its previous album.

Posted by: Tawdry Hepburn 24th August 2019, 03:16 PM

For the record, I really think Joseph is right about this one.

Posted by: Jay ☆ 24th August 2019, 04:53 PM

I agree that it's down to context, i.e. how big the artist is. Top 40 or even Top 100 can feel like a great achievement for some artists, whereas others missing the Top 10/20 can feel like a bit of an under-performance (I say under-performance rather than flop, because that word feels too strong nowadays). I think in the main a Top 40 position can be viewed as being at least "pretty good going" nowadays. There's a lot of things I miss about 90s/00s music, but one thing I don't miss is that charting at #6 could be considered as flopping (poor Victoria Beckham!), and most big artists missing the Top 10 was treated as being really underwhelming. For new artists it could even be disastrous/career ending(!)