Grammy Awards: Leading nominees broke out on YouTube, Spotify

Among the nominees for this year's top awards – song, record, and album of the year – only British soul singer Sam Smith and R&B artist Pharrell Williams had a hit that placed among the top 10 radio songs in total plays in 2014. Nominees like Iggy Azalea and Meghan Trainor came to the public's attention online.

Evan Agostini/Invision/AP
Meghan Trainor attends the 2014 Billboard Women in Music luncheon.

The old-fashioned radio still reigns as consumers' top source for finding new music, but at Sunday's Grammy Awards, online streaming might show itself to be the fast track to industry recognition.

With the likes of record-of-the-year nominees Iggy Azalea and Meghan Trainor breaking out on YouTube and streaming services such as Spotify, this year's Grammys could be a celebration for one of music's few growing segments.

Among the nominees for this year's top awards – song, record and album of the year – only British soul singer Sam Smith and R&B artist Pharrell Williams had a hit that placed among the top 10 radio songs in total plays in 2014, according to Nielsen SoundScan.

"I don't think anyone who is voting thinks that the Grammys happen in a world where streaming doesn't exist," said William Gruger, the social/streaming chart manager at Billboard.

The online success of Azalea's rap hit "Fancy" with singer Charli XCX and Trainor's ode to full-figured women "All About that Bass" underscore the power that streaming – and its young-skewing consumers – have in elevating a song's profile at the grassroots.

Such is the promise of streaming that Apple Inc bought headphone maker Beats for $3 billion last year, in part for its curated music service.

Grammy voters, however, are supposed to cast their ballots only on artistic merit, said Neil Portnow, the president of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, which hands out the awards.

"The fact that music is available to consumers via streaming and via download or via traditional product, that doesn't have anything to do with the awards process itself," Portnow said. "There isn't anything about streaming that relates directly to how those awards are given."

But falling album sales and digital song downloads have elevated streaming's prominence within the industry. In December, Billboard and data compiler Nielsen SoundScan revamped the weekly album chart to include online streaming.

Services such as Spotify, Beats, and Google's YouTube helped propel on-demand music streams to 55 percent growth in 2014.

"The industry is paying more attention to it especially when Billboard is changing their charts," said Lyndsey Parker, editor of Yahoo Music.

Azalea's "Fancy" was the top song on Spotify in 2014 while its video racked up 440 million views on YouTube in under a year.

"'Fancy' blew up because people were streaming that song like crazy ... it's good for discovery and elevating the profiles of new artists," Parker added.

Trainor's "Bass" has been streamed 569 million times on YouTube. By contrast, John Legend's "All of Me" was last year's top radio song with 816,000 plays.

But streaming still faces an uphill climb among the industry's establishment, which is unhappy with the way and amount of money services such as Spotify compensate for the art.

Megastar Taylor Swift, a song and record of the year nominee, notably pulled all her music from Spotify and streaming sites in November prior to the release of top-selling album "1989."

Spotify, which boasts 60 million active users, says about 70 percent of its revenue goes to record labels and publishers, which then have their own separate agreements with artists.

"If a streaming service bases its business on the music that it plays, one would think there has to be a way where the people who write, perform and own that music can be fairly compensated for the work they do," Portnow said.

"I don't think we are there yet," he added, "and I think there is a long way to go."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.