Millionaire

2y

Also tbf there are albums that are 30 and 40x platinum

TheFader

2y

Post Malone had 8 songs go Diamond in a 7-year period, including one that went double Diamond. It’s getting ridiculous.

I’m not saying it’s not an achievement, it’s just diluting the prestige of the title when it’s becoming so commonplace for it to happen.

The amount of Diamond songs there will be by 2035/2040 will be an absolutely ridiculous number if these rules don’t change

thegreatdivine

2y

Those songs are f***ing massive, that's why he was able to do that. The hits off Post's first 3 albums have insane recurrent streams.

They've already made changes when they changed the streaming tiers and made free streams count even less than before. That's all the changes they'll be making.

Something being prestigious doesn't mean if it seems to be easier for people to do it, the rules should be changed to make it that much harder to achieve.

As easy as it seems to go Diamond with singles today, it's that much harder to go Diamond with albums today. There are less than 5 albums released in the last 15 years to go Diamond. Meanwhile, there are dozens of albums from the 2000s, 90s & 80s that have done that. Don't you see how crazy it is that Post Malone has almost 10 Diamond songs but still doesn't have an album close to being certified Diamond?

TheFader

2y

Sure, it’s harder to go Diamond with albums today.

But it wasn’t in any way easy pre-streaming. People had to go out and buy those hard copies in droves, it wasn’t longterm passive sales.

They’re gonna need to change the rules before there’s quite literally a thousand Diamond songs by 2040.

There’s no reason that streams after 5 or 10 years can’t count less or not count at all towards the total RIAA certifications. Movies don’t get additional box office revenue when someone streams it on Netflix years after it released.

thegreatdivine

2y

· edited

Why are you so bothered by this when the RIAA themselves aren't?

Movies get a theatrical run and half their profits are split with theatres before moving to streaming where additional profits can be made and yes, if tons of people keep streaming a movie/series, more money gets generated and actors/writers get paid off the additional money generated, something that was just negotiated in the just-concluded strike.

Same goes for music streaming. More streams = more money being generated = more units sold = higher certifications. That doesn't happen with movies because box office scores only count during the theatrical run of a movie and most studios don't announce the profits their movies generate off streaming.

Look, none of this is changing. As much as you wanna complain about the number of songs going Diamond, only the biggest artists are getting multiple songs that manage that. Other acts get 1 song or maybe 2. Also, there are much older songs from the 90s and the 2000s going Diamond today, which was only possibly because of streaming.

It all evens out when you realize that the competition today is 100 times what it was 30 years ago. About 100 million songs from hundreds of thousands of artists globally get uploaded on DSPs yearly. You also have to compete with multiple streaming platforms bombarding people with content weekly via podcasts, movies, TV shows, documentaries, etc. You have apps like TikTok that zap people's attention. There's very little attention to go around today so success is that much more noteworthy. You couldn't comprehend that kind of output even 20 years ago so there wasn't as much competition and more room for more artists to succeed. It's much harder doing that today so why should streaming era artists be punished for the time they found themselves in. We already see how hard it is for artists to establish themselves these days.

It all boils down to this: ANY song with great recurrent streaming numbers (whether that's a song from the 70s or the 2020s) can reach Diamond status with the right amount of streams. It's fair play for everyone and it all boils down to who can gather and sustain public interest in their song the longest, not who has enough fans with enough money to buy enough albums.

TheFader

2y

· edited

Obviously movie streams generate more money, that wasn’t the point.

That additional streaming revenue does not get added onto the film’s box office tally. Studios don’t consider that when proposing sequels or giving directors budgets for their next project, they look at what the film did theatrically, full stop.

It’s different with music, where streams literally generate never ending sales that the RIAA does count towards the song’s overall certifications. A song that does relatively well can literally go Diamond after 20-30 years, even if it wasn’t such a massive hit record. That’s backwards.

I’m not saying artists shouldn’t get paid for streams, obviously they should. I just don’t think that streams so many years after a song’s release should count as much as they do for a song’s overall certifications.

You might think the RIAA is cool with it right now, but I promise you them rules will get updated if songs keep going Diamond at such a high clip like they are right now. It completely dilutes the status of it.

kasich2028

2y

This whole Too-Many-Diamonds debate is getting tiresome and stoopid at this point.

1500 streams = ~$1.5 which is the price of a single, therefore is counted as a sale of a single.

This formula is not conjured up arbitrarily, it was chosen because $1.5 was generated to the music industry (the artist & label, more specifically), like when a single was purchased in store or on iTunes.

There is no reason for RIAA to change this formula simply due to the pace in which a single could reach diamond, since the speed in which songs go diamond has always been changing due to newer technologies or methods of consumption anyway. For example singles in go diamond way faster in the 2010s due to iTunes, vs 80s before the internet boom.

You’re supposed to sit back and amaze at how the ever changing technology of each decade are changing how singles are being sold, and how much faster they could go diamond as a resul
instead of being bothered by it at it, and demand a formula change because of the new technology.

kasich2028

2y

This whole Too-Many-Diamonds debate is getting tiresome and stoopid at this point.

1500 streams = ~$1.5 which is the price of a single, therefore is counted as a sale of a single.

This formula is not conjured up arbitrarily, it was chosen because $1.5 was generated to the music industry (the artist & label, more specifically), like when a single was purchased in store or on iTunes.

There is no reason for RIAA to change this formula simply due to the pace in which a single could reach diamond, since the speed in which songs go diamond has always been changing due to newer technologies or methods of consumption anyway. For example singles in go diamond way faster in the 2010s due to iTunes, vs 80s before the internet boom.

You’re supposed to sit back and amaze at how the ever changing technology of each decade are changing how singles are being sold, and how much faster they could go diamond as a resul
instead of being bothered by it at it, and demand a formula change because of the new technology.

BRAVE

2y

For example singles in go diamond way faster in the 2010s due to iTunes, vs 80s before the internet boom.

1

BRAVE

2y

For example singles in go diamond way faster in the 2010s due to iTunes, vs 80s before the internet boom.

1

kasich2028

2y

This whole Too-Many-Diamonds debate is getting tiresome and stoopid at this point.

1500 streams = ~$1.5 which is the price of a single, therefore is counted as a sale of a single.

This formula is not conjured up arbitrarily, it was chosen because $1.5 was generated to the music industry (the artist & label, more specifically), like when a single was purchased in store or on iTunes.

There is no reason for RIAA to change this formula simply due to the pace in which a single could reach diamond, since the speed in which songs go diamond has always been changing due to newer technologies or methods of consumption anyway. For example singles in go diamond way faster in the 2010s due to iTunes, vs 80s before the internet boom.

You’re supposed to sit back and amaze at how the ever changing technology of each decade are changing how singles are being sold, and how much faster they could go diamond as a resul
instead of being bothered by it at it, and demand a formula change because of the new technology.

ManU Minute

2y

LA alone will get this done.

TheFader

2y

Obviously movie streams generate more money, that wasn’t the point.

That additional streaming revenue does not get added onto the film’s box office tally. Studios don’t consider that when proposing sequels or giving directors budgets for their next project, they look at what the film did theatrically, full stop.

It’s different with music, where streams literally generate never ending sales that the RIAA does count towards the song’s overall certifications. A song that does relatively well can literally go Diamond after 20-30 years, even if it wasn’t such a massive hit record. That’s backwards.

I’m not saying artists shouldn’t get paid for streams, obviously they should. I just don’t think that streams so many years after a song’s release should count as much as they do for a song’s overall certifications.

You might think the RIAA is cool with it right now, but I promise you them rules will get updated if songs keep going Diamond at such a high clip like they are right now. It completely dilutes the status of it.

orobi

2y

Movies do actually look at post theatrical revenue when discussing sequels. The dark knight only happened cause BB went nuts on DVD, it basically flopped in theaters. Im sure its the same for streaming though its harder to monetize that