If streaming was around in the late 90s/early 2000s (1996-2004) and was as big as it is now, which songs or even artists do you think would have been bigger than they were in the UK.

Edited November 3, 2024Nov 3 by eman

Streaming seems to benefit American hits so I would say lots of American MOR stuff especially Amazed by Lonestar.

Edited November 3, 2024Nov 3 by TheSnake

The charts would be as terminally dull as they are today.

Something like 'The Reason' probably would've been about 20x bigger.

Eminem would probably have been #1 for about 3 years. Thank god streaming wasn’t around back then :lol:

Something like 'The Reason' probably would've been about 20x bigger.

 

and in 2004 'Real To Me' too maybe as it sounds very similar stylistally, although that would have depended on the success of Westlife and maybe they wouldn't have been as big

and in 2004 'Real To Me' too maybe as it sounds very similar stylistally, although that would have depended on the success of Westlife and maybe they wouldn't have been as big

 

I don't think 'Real To Me' is a song that really connected, it simply got to #1 on hype.

Shite like Westlife wouldn’t have had as many no1s!

If streaming had been included in the charts at the first possible opportunity (Pandora in 2005 was the first legal service I think.), would it have affected any number #1s?

I’ve often wondered this myself, like what would sales have been like for bands like the Spice Girls would they have been totally insane or would it have worked against them?

I’ve often wondered this myself, like what would sales have been like for bands like the Spice Girls would they have been totally insane or would it have worked against them?

 

Very valid point and I wonder that too. They had stability to a degree, so I think they’d have been ok compared to the debut high and then plummet songs/artists.

 

with streaming Wannabe would have been #1 for 10 weeks til ACR

but then with streaming it's hard to have 7 #1s in a row cos hits remain the top of the charts much longer

they probably would have had 3/4 #1s but no more

 

Westlife would probably be on 0 #1s, which is fair

 

things like Goo Goo Dolls-Iris would have been #1 for sure I reckon

and sure also for Alanis, songs like Ironic and You Oughtta Know

My childhood would have been ruined!

 

Bands like B*Witched, Steps and S Club 7 would not have had as many hits as they did

Indie, nu metal and pop rock would've done better.

 

I guess taking a look at how the songs of those years have done in streaming later on draws a picture to some extent.

yes I think all the pop-teen acts like Billie, A1, 911, 5ive, etc wouldn't have had any #1s

and instead big US hits like Baby One More Time, Don't speak etc would be 10 weeks at #1 or even more

Just tell me C'est La Vie would still have smashed right?!

Chumbawamba - Tubthumping would have been #1 for 9 weeks.

There are two ways to look at it and they're equally boring and unsatisfying answers.

 

1. Basically nothing changes because hardly anyone had access to that kind of technology at the time, it's a drop in the ocean

2. You suddenly have to imagine a drastically different world to accommodate such a thing and then the entire music landscape is different as a result.

 

But then let's say for example we take the most simple way of looking at it: Suddenly chart companies are able to track and collate what's being played on home/car stereos or whatever, akin to today's system. You first need a baseline starting point because we need to know the point at which the whole infrastructure is rebuilt. But also, we need to know what's going on with sales anyway. Are the two working hand in hand? Are we just scrapping them altogether, or is it like now where it's largely negligible except when it rears its head in to stamp in its own version of events (a la LadBaby)? Main thing is that it's not unreasonable to say that there are acts in the '90s/'00s whose M.O. in coordination with their label was getting #1 hits with the tools available. Much like it is now, the industry would simply lean into the streaming-equivalent and adjust accordingly. Such acts would either continue to dominate all the same, or they just wouldn't exist because there wasn't a sufficient market to justify themselves.

 

Alternative simple answer: Streaming changes the chart democracy into one of time over money. There's every possibility that they would simply get more kid friendly since kids have more free time. The only thing I'd feel mildly confident in saying is that there'd be a bit less in the way of ironed-on legacy acts continuing to score hits.

Shite like Westlife wouldn’t have had as many no1s!

 

That's what I think too, I was reading a book on the 90s/00s UK pop scene, and there was a part of the book that talked about the "big six" in Woolworths, where only 6 of the big releases each week were on there and if you weren't in the big six it affected your chart success, pop groups most likely benefitted the most from this, but with streaming, there is so much choice now, would these pop groups survive with wider competition or would they benefit?

 

I mean the only pop groups you can think of in the streaming era is Little Mix, BTS and Blackpink, but really they benefitted more from pure sales rather than streaming.

That's what I think too, I was reading a book on the 90s/00s UK pop scene, and there was a part of the book that talked about the "big six" in Woolworths

was it 'Reach For The Stars' by Michael Cregg by any chance? That was such a good read!