Can ‘1989,’ like ‘Teenage Dream,’ match a vaunted MJ record?

As I wrote on the 20th, Taylor Swift’s “Bad Blood” was an example of a perfectly-executed master plan, and we have since discovered the fruits of its success: “Bad Blood” (narrowly) overtook one of the year’s biggest hits AT ITS PEAK becoming her third #1 on the Hot 100 off a single album. Scoring 3 #1s off of a single album is quite rare: the last artist to do so was Adele, with her blockbuster 21 album. Only 9 artists have scored more than three #1s off of an album, ever. The record is 5 #1s, concurrently held by Michael Jackson’s Bad, and Katy Perry’s Teenage Dream. A recent Ask Billboard article addressed the question of whether Taylor Swift’s 1989 album could become the second album to tie a vaunted Michael Jackson record. So, naturally, I thought I would add in my two cents.

In order to address the question of WHETHER TS can match this record, we first need to take a peak at how the record was made, look at how Katy matched it, and then look at how TS has been doing.

How MJ did it.

Coming off of the supermassive success of the Thriller era, it stands to reason that we should have expected massively front-ended sales of Bad that quickly tapered and stabilized. Further album sales would be driven by the success of its singles. In fact, Bad did have a massively successful singles run, and its overall sales (32 million, globally), while not really approaching those of Thriller (the biggest selling -album of all time, at 66 million globally), still put it in the top 10. Thriller had attained success by means of a carefully executed strategy, starting out with a song designed to gently ease MJ into the playlists of racially-segregated radio programmers at a time soon after the disco bust when MJ’s most recent hits were disco, and years in the past. Then, he blew the roofs off and destroyed the racial divide with “Billie Jean,” plunged through a series of hits of different styles that would appeal to different people, and finally reignited excitement for an already massive album with an unprecedented epic music video.

Bad sought to replicate the success of Thriller, by drawing hits from different styles, by experimenting musically, and by crafting perfect music with broad appeal. The problem with massively front-loaded album sales is that it becomes difficult to sell a single that everyone already owns, in sufficient quantities to top the charts. Bad got around this dilemma by churning out radio-friendly singles of different styles, which appealed to different people, and thereby used the singles’ success to drive further album sales among different chunks of the populace. It also built on the concept of crafting massively epic music videos, which could dominate MTV. The epic “Smooth Criminal” anti-gravity lean, for example, helped the seventh single off of the Bad album become its sixth top ten (“Another Part of Me” peaked frustratingly at #11).

So, basically, MJ made this record despite massively front-ended album sales simply by being such a massive superstar.

How KP did it.

Katy’s album, Teenage Dream, by contrast, did not have massively front-ended sales. While it was successful internationally, selling 5.7 million copies, that is nowhere close to the totals that MJ racked up. Adele’s 21, by contrast, has tallied over 26 million copies internationally in a shorter sales period (which is actually incredibly impressive; in a decade or so, it might be challenging MJ for those upper tiers. A separate question that will unfortunately never be answered is what might have happened if Adele had released more than three singles off of 21.).

Yet, KP managed five #1s off her album (six, if you count the reissued version, along with two more top five hits). Katy’s album, then, was singles-driven. The singles ended up driving substantial album sales, but they generally weren’t handicapped by massively front-ended album sales.

Katy Perry, then, achieved her chart feat by releasing radio-friendly hit after radio-friendly hit, essentially by being a really good “singles-artist.”

What TS has Been Doing.

“Shake it Off” spent 12 weeks essentially tied with “All About that Base,” in the top two, four (the two at the beginning and the two at the end) of those weeks at #1. “Shake it Off” thus was harmed by “All About that Base,” but both songs got lucky in the absence of other competitive hits as they were coming down off of their peaks. “Shake it Off” was driven primarily by impressive and consistent sales, youtube streams, and a solid run at radio.

“Blank Space” had weaker sales figures than “Shake it Off,” but had virtually identical radio airplay and stronger youtube streaming, and it didn’t spend eight weeks a hair behind one of the years biggest hits. But, it was subjected to stronger competition as it was coming off of its peak, and it thus managed to scrape only six weeks in the top slot.

“Style” is where things fell apart. Weak sales paired with weak youtube views for a less-than-exciting video to result in a #6 peak for a song that still managed to scrape a virtually-identical level of radio airplay as the prior two hits.

“Bad Blood,” though, proved that Taylor Swift is a superstar. She timed the release of her hit against the PEAK of one of the year’s biggest hits, “See You Again,” a song that has been racking up far stronger youtube streaming numbers than ANY of TS’s prior three singles, a song that is still sporting strong sales figures, and that is approaching its radio peak. And, TS came out on top. Narrowly, yes, and after a perfectly executed marketing push featuring a viral music video featuring about a dozen celebrities and the apparent production-value of a high-end action thriller. Most importantly, it featured a new version of the song that everyone could buy. But she did come out on top.

The question on everyone’s minds, then, is whether TS can propel future singles to #1 without duplicating the feat of “Bad Blood.” “Bad Blood,” after all, has the feel of a one-off, an all-in. She might be able to spend more on future music videos than she did on “Style,” but TS can’t possibly duplicate “Bad Blood” for every new single, and she probably can’t bring in a featured artist for a new version of each one, either.

So, what kind of performance can we expect?

Sales

The biggest problem TS faces is this: she has to find a way to goose singles sales, despite the fact that everyone and their dog has already bought her album. With “Bad Blood,” she brought in a featured artist for a new version of the song, and that was absolutely brilliant (and it worked). I am skeptical of the idea that TS is going to release a new version of all of her future singles, but I could easily see her doing it with one or two more. Two more #1s is all that it takes for her to match the record. But, if she just releases a new version of her next two singles with a featured artist that is barely different enough to justify purchase of the new version, people will catch on to her game, and her popularity will take a hit. TS isn’t going to do it so bluntly.

Instead, she is going to have to be a bit clever about her strategy, in order to get away with it. She has to make it look natural. That might mean releasing the two songs with featured artists in between songs promoted with just the album version. But, the songs that she wants to go to #1 should be the songs that are strongest. Releasing weaker songs before stronger songs, however, is risky. You lose momentum as you move through the singles on your album. People have heard them. They get sick of hearing Taylor Swift. They bought the album a year ago. They already own the single being promoted. Ariana Grande, for example (I’m using her as an example because she just feels like a stereotypical pop-star at this point in her career), has seen a slightly lower peak with each new single from her latest album, My Everything. Each single was a hit, but after a while, they all start to kind of sound the same, and by the time we already bought into the first three singles, some of us are tuning out and waiting for the next album, with the next new sound. Tossing in a weak single might ruin the biggest thing the album has going for it: its perception as an unstoppable juggernaut. Then again, tossing in a weak single just before blowing the roof off might get people excited in a way that a string of similar hits might not.

In the end, TS might need a strong music video and a new version of the song to push through sufficient sales to see another #1, but perfect timing and strong promotion might allow her to edge into the lead when competition is low.

Streaming

One of TS’s problems is that she isn’t available on Spotify. Then again, youtube views for “Blank Space” prove that that isn’t determinative. A future #1 is going to need a strong music video.

Radio

It remains to be seen how much radio airplay “Bad Blood” will get, but I would be wholly unsurprised if it were to peak at just under 150 million audience impressions, just like “Style,” “Blank Space,” and “Shake it Off” did before. If it does, then I think it is safe to predict that future radio-friendly singles off of 1989 will perform similarly at radio. That level of radio airplay is sufficient to rank at #1 on radio songs when the competition is relatively weak (“Shake it Off” and “Blank Space” both managed it), but the biggest hits of the year frequently peak higher. “Style” for example, peaked only at #3 on radio songs. Both of the most recent #1s, “Uptown Funk” and “See You Again,” have seen larger radio audiences. Still, with slim competition, future Swift singles could garner sufficient radio airplay, if coupled with reasonably strong sales and youtube streams, to pop into the top slot for a time.

Conclusion

Acquiring two more #1s is doable, if TS really wants to. But, it would require careful timing, and perhaps pushing the boundaries of what fans consider acceptable. She might need to bring in more featured artists (in a tactful way), and she might need to put in some promotion time and spend a bit on her music video. But, considering who we are talking about, I won’t be surprised if she pulls it off.

Why We Read and Write from Left to Right… and Why Other Cultures Didn’t.

As I was trying recently to read an opinion on my laptop in the laziest manner possible, laying on my side with my head resting comfortably on my pillow and with no uncomfortable pressure on my chest, I noticed that it was somewhat difficult to read vertically. I kind of felt like I was going cross-eyed, and my reading was slower than usual. Eventually, it clicked. Our eyes are aligned horizontally. Imagine your field of vision from one eye. The area approximately directly in front of it is your field of focus, where you have the best possible vision. Then, you have pretty good vision extending away from that point. At the very corners of your eyes, you largely detect motion only. Now, to read a word, you usually have to be looking right at it. The tiny circles or ovals of reading vision in front of your eyes may overlap somewhat, but it is basically like two circles. For a small horizontal line, you can pretty well see the whole thing well enough to read it. But, for a vertical line, you are forced to look at individual words or letters at a time, at the area of your field of reading vision that is weakest, the area right between the two circles, or the tiny area in which they overlap. So, that is why it is much easier physically to read horizontally than vertically.

The medium of writing also played a large role. Obviously, if you are going to write in lines from top to bottom, you are probably going to read them the same way. In the beginning, when writing was done via hammer and chisel, it made sense for right-handed individuals to hold the chisel in their left (weak) hand and swing the hammer with their right (strong) hand. With this setup, it was more natural to write from right to left, so the arm wouldn’t be covering up what was just written. Then, when humanity switched to ink pens, they were held primarily in the right hand, which lead to writing from left to right in order to avoid smudging the ink, and so you could see what you just wrote.

As for Asian cultures who actually did write from top to bottom, this was probably due to the use of scrolls. The Chinese, after all, were the first to use paper widely. As you are unrolling and rolling a scroll, you need to a) avoid smudging the ink, b) see what you have just written, and c) give the ink plenty of time to dry before it gets rolled up. Note that the writing was done from top to bottom, but from left to right, to accommodate right-handedness. Note also that characters tended to by wide, clumpy, and informative (carrying complete words or ideas). For purposes of reading a script that is top-to-bottom, this would be very helpful to facilitate rapid reading.

So, you wonder what method is best in the modern world? Personally, I think our current alphabet is just fine, but we should start writing and reading boustrophedonically. It is so annoying when you get to the end of a line and then when your eyes leap back to the beginning you skip a line or lose your place. Boustrophedonic writing means switching directions with each line. It allows your eyes to run seamlessly through the writing without any wasted time (or errors) spent tracing each line all the way back to the beginning, and could therefore facilitate faster reading in general. It would also make reading things in the mirror much easier. Obviously, boustrophedonic writing would have been impractical in the time of manual printing presses or typewriters. However, in the age of laser jet printers, there is absolutely no reason that we can’t switch back. The only thing standing in our way is inertia, and that can eventually be overcome.

 

Did you find this article interesting? Are you wondering about the answer to some other arcane question? Sound off in the comments below.

The Genius of Taylor Swift’s “Bad Blood” and the legitimacy of Thriller comparisons

The youtube views for Taylor Swift’s “Shake it Off,”and “Blank Space,” easily her biggest hits to date, peaked in their first days at 8-9 million views/day. Both videos have now accumulated over 800 million views, and are poised to overtake every other video except “Gangnam Style” within the foreseeable future. “Shake it Off” spent its run largely in the 3 million views/day range, while “Blank Space” spent its heyday in the 5 million views per day range (“Shake it Off” had a substantial head start). By contrast, Taylor Swift’s third single, “Style,” started with under 6 million views/day, and dropped down to 2 million/day, where it held through its radio peak. “Style” now has a mere 167 million views. While “Shake it Off” spent four weeks at #1 on the Hot 100 (12 weeks in the top two, essentially tied with “All About that Base”) and “Blank Space” spent six weeks at #1, “Style” peaked at a mere #6, despite accumulating a similar amount of radio airplay.

Why?

1) “Style” was handicapped by 1989‘s supermassive sales. After everyone and their dog bought the album, it was hard to sell the single separately. While “Shake it Off” opened with over half a million first week sales and spent a long time selling over 200,000/week, “Blank Space” had weaker sales and “Style” struggled to sell even 100,000/week at its peak.

2) “Style” had week streaming and youtube views. It’s true that Taylor took her entire catalogue off Spotify before even “Shake it Off” peaked, but “Style” had an especially week music video. It wasn’t very engaging, and didn’t really feature a storyline. Further, the fact that everyone owned the album by then probably also hurt streaming a bit too.

3) “Style” itself’s early success handicapped it. “Style” became available for consumption as soon as 1989 was released, and, indeed, it sold a substantial number of copies BEFORE it was released as a single. Rumors that it was going to be the next single generated buzz that resulted in some radio airplay and pushed sales up to 50,000 in a single week. People who buy the single before it becomes a single don’t help it to chart well.

Essentially, then, Taylor Swift’s difficulties with “Style” are simply those endemic with any late single off of an album, especially one as successful as 1989. And yet, the new video for “Bad Blood” accumulated over 18.5 million views within its first day days of availability, approximately double Taylor’s peak with “Shake it Off” and “Blank Space.” At the moment, “Bad Blood” occupies both the #1 and #13 slots on iTunes, and 1989 has leapt back up to #3 on the album side. Could “Bad Blood” be an even bigger hit than the already supermassive singles that have already come off of Taylor’s already supermassive album?

 

Thriller

In 1982, Michael Jackson was at the peak of his career to date. He generated an impressive record when the first four singles of the Jackson 5 all became #1 hits. He had embarked on a successful solo career with an album, Off the Wall, which is mediocre only in comparison with its supermassive followup, Thriller. As for Thriller itself, it had already generated several hits, including the career-defining “Billie Jean,” whose extraordinarily successful music video essentially forced MTV to integrate and at the same time helped MTV become the powerhouse it then became. Then, after six consecutive top ten singles and an extraordinary  but bouncy sales run, Thriller‘s sales were finally slumping. Then he released “Thriller”‘s 14 minute epic music video, Thriller-mania took hold of the nation, the album went back to the top of the chart and stayed there for months, going on to be easily the biggest-selling album of all time. As for “Thriller” itself, it set a record by becoming Jackson’s seventh top ten off a single album, reaching #4 on the Hot 100, and also becoming an instant classic that has lasted through the ages. Decades after its release, the “Thriller” music video rakes in hundreds of thousands of views per day (over 1 million on Halloween).

In short, Thriller was a massive album that broke down racial segregation in music, revitalized a music industry that was in a slump after the disco era went bust, and became a supermassive juggernaut after the release of an epic music video.

 

1989

Like Thriller, 1989 is a career-changing album for Taylor Swift, who was already at the height of her career as an international pop superstar. At a time when album sales are generally in the gutter after a long and steep decline, Taylor Swift managed to generate a larger opening week than has been seen by any other artist in over a decade. She managed to maintain substantial sales through 13 weeks at #1 on the Billboard 200, after solid singles, and now finally sees her sales slipping.

So, she did EXACTLY the best thing she could possibly have done.

1) She stoked the media with rumors of a juicy high profile feud with Katy Perry.

2) She released a high-budget epic music video for her next single starring herself in a transformative role and an exhaustive list of celebrity side characters with extraordinary special effects and beautiful optics.

3) Finally, she created a new version of her single featuring distinctive rap verses by Kendrick Lamar to be featured in her music video. The new version is sufficiently distinctive that all her fans will want to own it and won’t feel ripped off, but it still retains most of the original audio and is still fundamentally the same song.

The result: “Shake it Off” level sales coupled with massive youtube views (streams) and a speedy assent on radio.

4) BONUS: Taylor is planning on releasing more video footage in installments, to create an actual epic narrative beyond the simplistic 4 minute music video that is already wracking up millions of views. This is going to allow her to keep fueling the fire in the weeks to come.

 

Conclusion

Pure genius. Taylor is doing all the right things to match Michael Jackson’s Thriller, and it would not surprise me in the least to see a long-term revitalized interest in 1989 that skyrockets Taylor Swift to a new level of superstardom. As for “Bad Blood,” itself, I foresee another lengthy stay in the top 2 of the Billboard Hot 100.