Catalog chart vs. current chart

This is the place where you can vent whatever's on your mind. Feel free to go off on extended rants or brief blurbs about whatever's rocking your world.

Moderators: D. Phillips, Jake

Jake
GLONO Team Member
Posts: 7238
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:00 pm
Location: Michigan

Catalog chart vs. current chart

Postby Jake » Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:21 pm

Lefsetz does the Top Catalog Chart, which points out the weird fact that sales of old records are for some reason separated from sales of new records.

5. Bob Seger "Greatest Hits"

Sales this week: 11,473
Cume: 7,985,324

This number would put Seger at number 94 on the main chart. Which would make him bigger than…

Madonna, whose stiff "Confessions Tour" album only moved 10,882.

And Diddy, whose "Press Play" only sold 10,797.

Bigger than the Pussycat Dolls, who only sold 10,648.

Bigger than the Decemberists, who only sold 6,029.

So who’s a star? Or, who’s a BIGGER STAR?

As for Madonna, you’d have to slide all the way down to number 136 on the catalog chart to find her "Immaculate Collection", which moved 2,529 copies this week, for a cume of 5,519,776. But it’s she that gets all the press. Isn’t Bob Seger that has-been from burned-out Detroit?

Wouldn't it be more interesting/informative to base "The Top 200" on total sales for that week? If the Seeg's Hits are outselling Madonna, Diddy, and the Pussycat Dolls, then Bob Seger's Greatest Hits should be on the chart!

What is the reasoning for separating current releases from catalog releases? Anybody know?

D. Phillips
GLONO Team Member
Posts: 2892
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 8:00 pm

Postby D. Phillips » Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:36 pm

And at what point does an album move to "catalog" distinction? After a year? After five years?

Jake
GLONO Team Member
Posts: 7238
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:00 pm
Location: Michigan

Postby Jake » Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:08 pm

Wikipedia to the rescue: "On March 25, 1991 Billboard premiered the Top Pop Catalog Albums chart. Current criteria for this chart are albums that are more than two years old and have fallen below position 100 on the Billboard 200. An album need not have charted on the Billboard 200 at all to qualify for catalog status."

But that doesn't answer why they're excluded from The Billboard 200...

Jake
GLONO Team Member
Posts: 7238
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:00 pm
Location: Michigan

Postby Jake » Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:13 pm

And more:

Billboard Comprehensive Albums includes any album, old or new, sold anywhere. Generally, the Billboard Comprehensive Albums is nearly identical to the Billboard 200, with the exception of approximately twenty to thirty "catalog" albums that still sell well enough to be one of the top 200-selling albums in any given week.

Billboard Comprehensive Albums is not published in the print edition of Billboard magazine. Instead, it can be viewed via paid subscription to Billboard's online service.

worpswede
GLONO Board Maniac
Posts: 1792
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 5:43 pm
Location: (((IOWA)))

Postby worpswede » Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:40 pm

Jake wrote: But that doesn't answer why they're excluded from The Billboard 200...

I thought they changed the criteria because of Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon after it finally fell off the 200 chart after, what, over a decade on the chart. If I recall, it dropped off and then made a return a week later or something.
Personally, I think that kind of shit is cool. Christ, even my old man knew about trivia like that: he made a comment about it once when I was a kid and when I went to the newstand to pick up a Fantastic Four, I'd check Billboard to see if it was still there.

D. Phillips
GLONO Team Member
Posts: 2892
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 8:00 pm

Postby D. Phillips » Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:28 pm

I think the labels themselves are somehow behind this. Think how it would look if every week 3 or 4 of the TOP 5 was always an album released 20 - 30 years ago. Charts aren't just data, they're marketing resources. Everyone loves a winner and when a record hits #1 there's a sales spike. Think of how many ads you see trumpeting the rank of an album on the Top 40.

Lep
GLONO Board Maniac
Posts: 1336
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 10:34 am
Location: Lutèce

Postby Lep » Thu Mar 01, 2007 3:34 am

I would like to say "Bingo!" to you, Mr. Phillips.

And I bet the reason for the Seger thing is the same reason that Dylan had his #1 record. Who buys CDs? Old folks.

grounded5am
Edie Brickell fan
Posts: 1979
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 9:04 pm

Postby grounded5am » Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:08 pm

what do you mean by old folks though? i buy cd's and i wouldn't consider myself old.

n8
GLONO Board Kingpin
Posts: 661
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:27 pm
Location: Oaktown

Postby n8 » Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:06 pm

grounded5am wrote:what do you mean by old folks though? i buy cd's and i wouldn't consider myself old.


i also buy cds and have never once paid for an MP3 (and don't plan to start).

but hey, i do accept i'm in the minority among people of my age group (mid 20s). so here's the question: when will the Billboard charts begin to reflect digital sales, or when will digital/mp3 sales get a chart of their own? maybe they already do...

grounded5am
Edie Brickell fan
Posts: 1979
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 9:04 pm

Postby grounded5am » Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:18 pm

they have a top internet sales chart or something like that.


Return to “Rants and Raves”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest