Read on Twitter
"Why music from the digital era is more memorable than music from the streaming era", a thread :
First of all, I think a psychological factor plays an important role in how we consume music. During the digital era, people did not immediately purchase music from iTunes. They took their time to Listen to the music on TV or on YouTube.
That would explain why ratings and views were higher back then. All the songs were a dollar each so people actually decided if the songs they& #39;re supporting were worth the money buying it. It explains the boosts songs received after award shows.
Music worth buying also meant longevity. Only well established artists charted high when songs debuted. All the hits were relatively stable because people did not get tired of them. Flash forward to the streaming era, You don& #39;t have to spend money to buy songs.
Being an artist in the digital era meant that you needed to have good stage presence, good personality, good social media presence, innovative ideas to get people to listen to you, controversy etc... These things would make the GP interested in the artist.
In the streaming era, Since music is basically free after you pay a fixed amount, people don& #39;t wait to experience the song before buying like they used to. They stream it for a few days and then stop altogether. It explains the #1 debuts followed by the free falls.
Award shows barely boost songs and being an interesting person/artist doesn& #39;t matter anymore. everything is a trend and all trends die out eventually. That& #39;s all I have to say in this thread. Also sorry the the typos and Thank you for reading 
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="♥️" title="Herz" aria-label="Emoji: Herz">
