independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sat 15th Jun 2019 5:36pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Billboard's "Comprehensive Chart" Vs. Top 200?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 07/01/09 5:58pm

sro100

avatar

Billboard's "Comprehensive Chart" Vs. Top 200?

With Michael Jackson's catalog discs outselling the #1 album on the Top 200, it brings up an interesting case:

According to Billboard their "Comprehensive" has Michael Jackson in the top 3 sales positions, but he's nowhere to be found on the Top 200; his discs are qualified as older, or "catalog" titles.

Should all discs be judged on the charts solely for how many units they sell?

??
[Edited 7/1/09 18:00pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 07/01/09 6:02pm

dreamfactory31
3

This has never happened before in the history of the Billboard charts, so its really unprecedented. It should also be noted that Michael Jackson's chart positionings only account for 3 days of sells (which ended on Sunday). This is a very good question going forward for the people at Billboard.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 07/01/09 6:03pm

Timmy84

sro100 said:

With Michael Jackson's catalog discs outselling the #1 album on the Top 200, it brings up an interesting case:

According to Billboard their "Comprehensive" has Michael Jackson in the top 3 sales positions, but he's nowhere to be found on the Top 200; his discs are qualified as older, or "catalog" titles.

Should all discs be judged on the charts solely for how many units they sell?

??
[Edited 7/1/09 18:00pm]


It's a rule. Albums here in America that are in print after more than two years are automatically sent to the catalog charts, but not the main album chart for newer releases. They did this because of Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" still on the Billboard chart after about 25 years.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 07/01/09 6:13pm

kalelvisj

Billboard's chart accounting is often confusing. Timmy84, thanks for clearing up how they make the distinction between top 200 and the catalog charts. Another album that would have been impacted is 1999. It stayed on in the album charts throughout Purple Rains....er...reign.

As far as Michael's sells this week being unprecedented, that isn't exactly true. RCA was shipping 20 million Elvis records a week for much of the year after he died. None his sales of older albums were put onto the top album chart except for the album that came out shortly before he died. There were lines to get into record stores all over the world. For those of us old enough to remember all of this is very familiar and very sad.

Peace!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 07/01/09 6:54pm

LittleBLUECorv
ette

avatar

Only one Jackson album was eligible and it charted #191 (the Motown disc Gold with 3,000.)
PRINCE: Always and Forever
MICHAEL JACKSON: Always and Forever
-----
Live Your Life How U Wanna Live It
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 07/01/09 6:56pm

Timmy84

kalelvisj said:

Billboard's chart accounting is often confusing. Timmy84, thanks for clearing up how they make the distinction between top 200 and the catalog charts. Another album that would have been impacted is 1999. It stayed on in the album charts throughout Purple Rains....er...reign.

As far as Michael's sells this week being unprecedented, that isn't exactly true. RCA was shipping 20 million Elvis records a week for much of the year after he died. None his sales of older albums were put onto the top album chart except for the album that came out shortly before he died. There were lines to get into record stores all over the world. For those of us old enough to remember all of this is very familiar and very sad.

Peace!


Yeah I heard that. That's a reason why Elvis' sales blew up the way it did.
[Edited 7/1/09 18:57pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 07/01/09 7:48pm

NoVideo

avatar

I think it's idiotic, personally. If an album is #1, it's #1. Why should it matter when it came out? #1 should be for the top selling album, period. If they want to have a catalog chart to show what old albums are selling, cool. But why exclude them from the Top 200?
* * *

Prince's Classic Finally Expanded
The Deluxe 'Purple Rain' Reissue

http://www.popmatters.com...n-reissue/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 07/01/09 8:37pm

lastdecember

avatar

Timmy84 said:

sro100 said:

With Michael Jackson's catalog discs outselling the #1 album on the Top 200, it brings up an interesting case:

According to Billboard their "Comprehensive" has Michael Jackson in the top 3 sales positions, but he's nowhere to be found on the Top 200; his discs are qualified as older, or "catalog" titles.

Should all discs be judged on the charts solely for how many units they sell?

??
[Edited 7/1/09 18:00pm]


It's a rule. Albums here in America that are in print after more than two years are automatically sent to the catalog charts, but not the main album chart for newer releases. They did this because of Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" still on the Billboard chart after about 25 years.


Honestly they should have kept it the way it was, this i think was changed MORE for the fact that SOUNDSCAN is in bed with the labels, and the labels at this point dont really care about catalog, because the artists coming out will NEVER have a catalog.

"We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 07/01/09 8:39pm

Timmy84

lastdecember said:

Timmy84 said:



It's a rule. Albums here in America that are in print after more than two years are automatically sent to the catalog charts, but not the main album chart for newer releases. They did this because of Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" still on the Billboard chart after about 25 years.


Honestly they should have kept it the way it was, this i think was changed MORE for the fact that SOUNDSCAN is in bed with the labels, and the labels at this point dont really care about catalog, because the artists coming out will NEVER have a catalog.


It wouldn't hurt to change it now.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 07/01/09 10:16pm

kalelvisj

I think it would especially be revealing to have the singles chart go back to being based on sales. Right now it so manipulated by the labels that own the radio station that sales have nothing to do with the charts anymore. Given that it so easy to track internet sales now, it has actually recreated a singles market that hadn't existed since the hey day of Prince and Michael Jackson back in the mid 80s.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 07/01/09 10:30pm

vainandy

avatar

Which one has had the most sales? Sales are what should count. I can remember back in the 1980s, a disc jockey pulled an old 45 by Charlene called "I've Never Been To Me" from the 1970s and played it on the air. It became a hit and made the charts in the 1980s even though it was originally released in the 1970s. Sales counted then and they should count now.

Does this mean that Michael Jackson's old music has outsold this new bullshit by these so-called artists that are out now? If so, I am so excited that I could just cum on myself. lol I knew when I saw all those young folks buying up Michael Jackson's old music that it was a good thing. I just hope it has some lasting influence on their taste. Unfortunately, it won't though. When this all dies down, it will just be shit hop business as usual. mad
.
.
.
[Edited 7/1/09 22:32pm]
Andy is a four letter word.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 07/01/09 10:35pm

Timmy84

vainandy said:

Which one has had the most sales? Sales are what should count. I can remember back in the 1980s, a disc jockey pulled an old 45 by Charlene called "I've Never Been To Me" from the 1970s and played it on the air. It became a hit and made the charts in the 1980s even though it was originally released in the 1970s. Sales counted then and they should count now.

Does this mean that Michael Jackson's old music has outsold this new bullshit by these so-called artists that are out now? If so, I am so excited that I could just cum on myself. lol I knew when I saw all those young folks buying up Michael Jackson's old music that it was a good thing. I just hope it has some lasting influence on their taste. Unfortunately, it won't though. When this all dies down, it will just be shit hop business as usual. mad
.
.
.
[Edited 7/1/09 22:32pm]


Exactly. They're only buying it because Michael's dead. They'd ignore it if he was alive and still in rehearsal right now.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 07/01/09 11:08pm

kalelvisj

Timmy84 said:

vainandy said:

Which one has had the most sales? Sales are what should count. I can remember back in the 1980s, a disc jockey pulled an old 45 by Charlene called "I've Never Been To Me" from the 1970s and played it on the air. It became a hit and made the charts in the 1980s even though it was originally released in the 1970s. Sales counted then and they should count now.

Does this mean that Michael Jackson's old music has outsold this new bullshit by these so-called artists that are out now? If so, I am so excited that I could just cum on myself. lol I knew when I saw all those young folks buying up Michael Jackson's old music that it was a good thing. I just hope it has some lasting influence on their taste. Unfortunately, it won't though. When this all dies down, it will just be shit hop business as usual. mad
.
.
.
[Edited 7/1/09 22:32pm]


Exactly. They're only buying it because Michael's dead. They'd ignore it if he was alive and still in rehearsal right now.


I think while there is a lot of truth in what you guys are saying that maybe there is some room for a little optimism. I have a lot of friends limited their listening to Hip hop, that really didn't pay much attention to James Brown or Johnny Cash until they passed, who after hearing their music on TV bought their cd's and now they are really developing an appetite for music not fed to them by BET, MTV or the Radio. I have faith in the quality of Michael Jackson's music to actually wake up some of the people who riding on the grief train right now. Who knows, maybe they will start holding their "stars" to a higher standard.

It is nice to hope anyway.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 07/02/09 2:45am

MrSmoketoomuch

avatar

http://www.nme.com/news/m...kson/45789


Michael Jackson albums to dominate US Billboard chart

Late singer set to feature in top nine-selling album slots

Jul 1, 2009

Michael Jackson is set to dominate the Billboard Top Pop Catalog Albums Chart in the USA, with Jackson-related releases currently occupying the top nine album sales positions in the chart run-down.

The official chart is set to be announced later today (July 1), with eight Jackson albums and a compilation set to make up the top nine places.

The singer's compilation album 'Number Ones' is expected to bag the top spot, having sold around 108,000 copies since his death on Thursday (June 25). 'The Essential Michael Jackson' compilation and his seminal 1982 album 'Thriller' are expected to make up the second and third chart places respectively.

The only non-Jackson related release expected to make the Top Ten in the chart is a reissue of the 'Woodstock' film soundtrack.

Jackson's solo albums have sold a collective total in excess of 415,000 copies in the USA since the singer's death.
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Billboard's "Comprehensive Chart" Vs. Top 200?