Not a MJ thread per-se, but in light of his passing, Billboard are coming in for some criticism. Apparently 60 'old' albums would be elegible for this weeks top 200. Shouldn't charts be based on what is popular irrespective of how old it may be?
http://www.billboard.com/.../index.jsp

CATALOG VS. CURRENT, CONTINUED

Dear Gary,

Billboard defends the omission last week of Michael Jackson owning the top three positions on the Billboard 200, since they were catalog titles. I know the charts are designed as tools for the industry, but Billboard's charts also have a history and legacy that people refer back to years later. Jackson has made history the past two weeks, but how will this be perceived in a historical context?

The problem is not the omission of the Jackson albums, but the title of the chart itself. "The Billboard 200" sounds absolute, anything goes, and, hence, mainly the reason, I would guess, for the heavy criticism Billboard has been receiving in reader comments below chart news stories. Perhaps "The Billboard 200" should be renamed "Top Contemporary Albums." Then, no one could question the Jackson albums being ineligible to chart.

The industry should have three main album charts to look at: Contemporary, Catalog, and Comprehensive (the three Cs).

Sincerely,

Richard K. Rogers
Astoria, New York


Hi Richard,

Billboard's decision not to allow Jackson's catalog titles (and, of course, all catalog titles, those defined as 18 months old or older) on the Billboard 200 following his passing has generated more Ask Billboard e-mails than any other recent topic. Thanks also to Paul Kotwas of Walden, New York, Steve Mauchline of Auckland, New Zealand, Simone Del Nero of Vasto, Chieti, Italy and Chris Feldman of Dubuque, Iowa, for passing along especially detailed comments.

Again this week, I turned to Billboard Director of Charts Silvio Pietroluongo, for further clarification of Billboard's present stance on the matter of catalog vs. current titles on our charts:

"Billboard's defense is actually an adherence to the rules that have been in place for nearly 20 years. Up until the past two weeks, they have really never been questioned. What has occurred following Jackson's death - a catalog title outselling the top-selling current album - is unprecedented, and it has led to us re-evaluate whether these long-standing rules have a place in today's musical landscape.

"If we would have made a snap judgment last week and opened up the Billboard 200 to Jackson's titles, it would have been celebrated by a large portion of our readers; I understand that. But, we could not allow just Jackson's older titles to chart. We would have to lift the catalog rule for all catalog albums, which would bring nearly 60 older titles onto the Billboard 200 at the expense of new and active titles and artists.

"As for your statement that the charts were designed as tools for the industry, that may have been 100% true some time back. Billboard has evolved into just as large of a consumer brand as a business-to-business one, and we need to make decisions that make the most sense for our publication to keep both sectors happy and engaged with the charts that we present.

"In light of the current rules in place, I think Billboard has done its best to represent, both in our charts (Top Comprehensive Albums, Top Pop Catalog) and editorial coverage, that Jackson has had the top-selling album in the country the past two weeks. Will history of the Billboard 200 show this activity years from now? No, and as a chart fan for many years, that is troubling to me.

"Billboard has, however, survived and adapted to these omissions in the past. Consider that in the mid-'90s, promoted but not commercially-released album cuts such as No Doubt's "Don't Speak" were not allowed on the Billboard Hot 100. As it became clear that label practices were changing, we realized that the chart was simply not showing all the biggest hits, and we removed the requirement of commercial availability for a title to appear on the Hot 100.

"With the type of feedback we're receiving from passionate fans such as yourself, as well as members of the music industry, we will, of course, make changes to any and all of our charts as needed in the near future."

>>>>>

Wouldn't new acts and Record labels be forced to up their game if they were up against classic artists week in, week out?

Anyhoo....
[Edited 7/13/09 16:41pm]