|
|
Post by richard on Oct 4, 2023 23:27:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Oct 4, 2023 23:38:03 GMT -5
Jackie attempted exactly the same thing with exactly the same "going crazy" songs in 2H Pt2 which I consider to be Jackie 2.0. So this attempt is Jackie 3.0. But there is always hope. Remember Microsoft didn't get it right until Windows 3.1. LOL...but Jackie 1.0 was her first career. Now she's trying to launch a second career...and has been for a while. Thus, Jackie 2.0. The units here are measured in actual careers, not attempts at careers or attempts at releasing original music. 2H Pt2 was her first attempt at releasing originals. If you want to use attempts at releasing original music as the unit of measurement, it's still 2.0 as now she's taking a second go at that. 3.0 only works if you mix units/apples and oranges, aka careers and original song release attempts. And you can't do that as it is clearly against the law and all the norms of civilized society. lol  I'm counting careers. But we disagree on whether to count a failed career as a career. We agree that Jackie's CC career is Jackie 1.0. For me, Jackie 2.0 (her second career) began in 2017 with the release of 2H Pt2. Note that 2H Pt2 was released by Jackie 2.0, not by Jackie 1.0. During this period, Jackie had 2 concurrent careers, a CC career and a pop career. Jackie 2.0 lasted only a few months and Jackie abandoned it. 6 years later in 2023, Jackie launched her 2nd attempt at pop with the release of BME. The question is what to call BME. Is BME the launch of her 2nd pop career or is it her 2nd attempt at her 1st pop career? If the former, then BME is Jackie 3.0. If the latter then BME is Jackie 2.0. I much prefer the former (Jackie 3.0) because calling it Jackie 2.0 implies that Jackie's 2017 attempt at a pop career never existed. The does a disservice to the facts. The fact that her 1st pop career was unsuccessful does not mean that it did not exist. Calling BME 2023 "Jackie 3.0" acknowledges that her previous 2017 attempt at pop existed. |
|
|
|
Post by M Sims on Oct 4, 2023 23:48:21 GMT -5
This is sounding less like a bot and more of a Cult worshipper. Caz and Rick are not the same person but both have identical pathologies Narcissism (Caz both attacks and projects it onto Jackie on her various pretend fan bot accounts) Manipulative Attention Seeking behaviors Caz doesnt have the ability to care about cats or anyone but Caz. Notice the hide and seek games he plays behind his aliases not just Disappointed. This is someone who thrives on attention, same with Rick and when Rick was brought up Caz took his disingenuous action, refusing to go through the protocol of making a real complaint. Unfortunately its tough for both of them to realize that the world doesn't revolve around them and their trolling. Similarly pushing "numbers" on services that rob artists and content creators. Being a dopey cult worshipper is not a solution to anything. People like donkey and colt if they arent in on the scam need to wake the ef up, its scary that they communicate directly with Jackie and push these Narcissistic insane talking point narratives. Who is Caz? Is it someone's nickname here on this forum? What does it mean to "push" numbers? Did you mean reporting them? I see that people post numbers, which I understand are used to estimate income. Are you saying that, because these services don't pay artists enough, you do not want Jackie not use those services, and therefore not earn any money from them? It seems foolish to turn away income. I'm confused about this conspiracy to scam people that you have asserted many times. Shouldn't you call the police? I have not experienced anyone trying to scam me, but I'll be on the lookout. This forum was created with the intention to attack Jackie via Rickky and gaslight the few fans here with a few exceptions Caz is behind most of the aliases and registered accounts that’s the scam one account says something and the other either argues or agrees. Why? To make a nothing burger appear as something. Caz and Rickky project their narcissism on Jackie that she should regardless of her health safety and financial well being narcissistically pursue her continued success while daily denying and lying about her previous successes. These two also stalk Jackie. They push services that her fans don’t prefer and rip artists and content creators off knowing full well what works for Jackie is her loyal fan base purchasing tracks or physical albums and touring which will happen. The ultimate goal is to turn off Jackie fans with a series of fraudulent lies and manipulation of facts and especially turn fans into anti fans which has happened and it’s dangerous. But some not very bright people despite the lack of evidence and total lack of common sense need little convincing. I’ve always corrected the garbage which makes me a threat. |
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Oct 5, 2023 7:09:09 GMT -5
The thing is the fans Jackie wants to attract do use those other services so msims is to much in the twilight zone! 3.0 Jackie needs to promote all the social media we’re her music 🎶 can be found!
|
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Oct 5, 2023 8:03:49 GMT -5
It appears Sims still has not given up the illusionary ghosts of technologies past. The reality is that he is no longer arguing with me or his imaginary friend Caz or some other enemy real or imagined or even the recording industry's chosen path ... Sims is just arguing with math. The numbers do not favor his interpretation and he has no cogent argument against them and so he just ignores math and makes it up as he goes along. However, the numbers do not lie. Except for a few outliers, no one sells albums in any significant numbers. Even worse for his argument, those who do are not selling CDs but vinyl LPs. There are some who insist the vinyl sound is superior, but most of the generated sales for vinyl is not for listening purposes but for collectors' purposes. Artists such as Taylor Swift will release vinyl special editions with alternate album covers and other special items in the packaging that are purchased not to listen to but to save and sell as rare merch to collectors at a later date. In those cases, the albums are never even played but saved in their original shrink wrap. Thus, even those who buy it are streaming the songs if they listen themselves. These special editions by major artists (including reissues such as the special box set for the 50th anniversary edition of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon) make up the vast majority of non-streaming sales - not some imagined Jackie fans who long for the CD format.
Sims still insists the streaming services are "ripping off" artists even though you don't really hear much in the way of complaining except among those artists whose songs people don't stream. Sims originally thought it scandalous that Spotify paid artists "only" $0.003 per stream but never did the math to see what that would mean in payments. So do you think that when Olivia Rodrigo felt abused when her album SOUR ended up 10.7 billion streams on Spotify and she ended up with over $32 million? Or when she earned $3 million for her new album GUTS within the first few weeks of its release? It must be hard getting along on such slave wages and then selling out sports arenas all over the world for additional tens of millions of dollars. How does the poor girl get by?
Then you have a minor non-mainstream artist like Grace Vanderwaal making six figures a year for doing absolutely nothing. That is, she can live comfortably just on the streaming from songs she recorded 3-6 years ago and she is not the only one. Sims doesn't seem to understand the fundamental difference between the sale vs. service nature of CDs and streaming. With CDs, you get paid once - at the point of sale. With streams, you get paid every time the song is played. Thus, it is more like radio airplay where the station pays the artist for each time they play one of their songs. The individual amount will seem small to those who can't do the math but those streams add up in the millions pretty quickly. Thus the payment is spread over many years and, in every case, a track that has any type of staying power (i.e., people want to listen to it years later) will end up far more profitable for the artist with streaming.
As for Jackie, there is no more significant numbers of sales for her than any other artist. The idea that CC listeners in general and Jackie fans in particular are somehow holding the fort against streaming is sheer bs. If she had sold CDs in any significant numbers, COT would have easily ended up on the Billboard 200. It didn't and so the sales were not anything of significance. Moreover, MP bragged about the streaming totals for COT but not the sales totals. Again, Sims is just making things up to suit his narrative but has no numbers to back them. He just has his religious convictions.
Furthermore, look at the totals for other CC artists. Everyone without exception has had their CD sales implode but offset it to varying degrees with streaming. Whatever falloff has occurred partly because of the downward trend for CC and partly because of the artists' own career issues. In Jackie's case, the loss in sales were not offset with streaming. The reason was not an inbuilt resistance to new media formats as much as a drop in Jackie's popularity for a combination of reasons. Among these are the falling of CC, her growing out of the "little girl with the big voice" image, a disconnect with her conservative fanbase because of controversies, a link (albeit unfair) to a particularly controversial former commander-in-chief, etc. We can argue about how much each contributed but there was an obvious fall.
|
|
|
|
Post by A fan long gone on Oct 5, 2023 8:16:05 GMT -5
The fake or flake wants to kissy the home town people and wants to sing the N A again at a Steeler game but they see her as a fake & flaky . |
|
|
|
Post by fake Socal Fan on Oct 5, 2023 8:32:54 GMT -5
Socal, there is spam on the Politics board in the thread "LIBTARDS', such as Outhouse and eulenspiegel, get all their political information from comics" by a poster named Christel Beak
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Oct 5, 2023 8:39:06 GMT -5
Who is Caz? Is it someone's nickname here on this forum? What does it mean to "push" numbers? Did you mean reporting them? I see that people post numbers, which I understand are used to estimate income. Are you saying that, because these services don't pay artists enough, you do not want Jackie not use those services, and therefore not earn any money from them? It seems foolish to turn away income. I'm confused about this conspiracy to scam people that you have asserted many times. Shouldn't you call the police? I have not experienced anyone trying to scam me, but I'll be on the lookout. This forum was created with the intention to attack Jackie via Rickky and gaslight the few fans here with a few exceptions Caz is behind most of the aliases and registered accounts that’s the scam one account says something and the other either argues or agrees. Why? To make a nothing burger appear as something. Caz and Rickky project their narcissism on Jackie that she should regardless of her health safety and financial well being narcissistically pursue her continued success while daily denying and lying about her previous successes. These two also stalk Jackie. They push services that her fans don’t prefer and rip artists and content creators off knowing full well what works for Jackie is her loyal fan base purchasing tracks or physical albums and touring which will happen. The ultimate goal is to turn off Jackie fans with a series of fraudulent lies and manipulation of facts and especially turn fans into anti fans which has happened and it’s dangerous. But some not very bright people despite the lack of evidence and total lack of common sense need little convincing. I’ve always corrected the garbage which makes me a threat. This site deals with facts and numbers not wishful thinking or made up facts.
We find anything positive Jackie is doing it is always reported here. Unfortunately there hasn't been much positive to report on, but that is Jackie's fault not ours.
|
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Oct 5, 2023 8:43:36 GMT -5
Socal, there is spam on the Politics board in the thread "LIBTARDS', such as Outhouse and eulenspiegel, get all their political information from comics" by a poster named Christel Beak Thanks. I have deleted the spam. |
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Oct 5, 2023 9:12:10 GMT -5
Hey Jackie has sung the NA twice for the Steelers and they won both games, Jackie isn’t fake when she sings the NA!
|
|
|
|
Post by donkey on Oct 5, 2023 9:52:33 GMT -5
The thing is the fans Jackie wants to attract do use those other services so msims is to much in the twilight zone! 3.0 Jackie needs to promote all the social media we’re her music 🎶 can be found! Jackie 2.0 |
|
|
|
Post by donkey on Oct 5, 2023 10:00:04 GMT -5
LOL...but Jackie 1.0 was her first career. Now she's trying to launch a second career...and has been for a while. Thus, Jackie 2.0. The units here are measured in actual careers, not attempts at careers or attempts at releasing original music. 2H Pt2 was her first attempt at releasing originals. If you want to use attempts at releasing original music as the unit of measurement, it's still 2.0 as now she's taking a second go at that. 3.0 only works if you mix units/apples and oranges, aka careers and original song release attempts. And you can't do that as it is clearly against the law and all the norms of civilized society. lol I'm counting careers. But we disagree on whether to count a failed career as a career. We agree that Jackie's CC career is Jackie 1.0. For me, Jackie 2.0 (her second career) began in 2017 with the release of 2H Pt2. Note that 2H Pt2 was released by Jackie 2.0, not by Jackie 1.0. During this period, Jackie had 2 concurrent careers, a CC career and a pop career. Jackie 2.0 lasted only a few months and Jackie abandoned it. 6 years later in 2023, Jackie launched her 2nd attempt at pop with the release of BME. The question is what to call BME. Is BME the launch of her 2nd pop career or is it her 2nd attempt at her 1st pop career? If the former, then BME is Jackie 3.0. If the latter then BME is Jackie 2.0. I much prefer the former (Jackie 3.0) because calling it Jackie 2.0 implies that Jackie's 2017 attempt at a pop career never existed. The does a disservice to the facts. The fact that her 1st pop career was unsuccessful does not mean that it did not exist. Calling BME 2023 "Jackie 3.0" acknowledges that her previous 2017 attempt at pop existed. Yeah, we disagree. To me, Jackie's first career has some pop in it too, i.e. some songs from Songs from the Silver Screen (i.e. song from Titanic, Lion King)....it just wasn't original songs. To me, a failed attempt at a second career doesn't count as a career...it failed. I'd call Jackie's 2H her first attempt at getting a second career going with some original songs...but it failed. Her upcoming album I'd call her second attempt at getting her second career going with original songs. So far it's failing too. I think she's had several attempts at starting that second career by trying to reinvent herself. I'd all The Debut one of those attempts as well. By the way, the interviewer during the Zoom meeting referred to it as Jackie 2.0...for what it's worth. lol |
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Oct 5, 2023 10:05:25 GMT -5
No it’s 3.0 2H was 2.0!
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest 5 on Oct 5, 2023 10:15:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest 5 on Oct 5, 2023 10:22:08 GMT -5
|
|
