Above: the top three albums on the latest album-sales chart put together by industry rag Hits, which tallied sales through Sunday. Michael Jackson took all three of the top spots, with Thriller notching 106,956 sales, the 38-song compilation Essential Michael Jackson selling 105,648 copies, and the more pared-down Number Ones collection moving 104,163 units. These numbers will likely be at least somewhat different than the ones proferred by Billboard tomorrow–and the release dates of these albums, as well as Jackson’s other catalog, will result in them landing on the all-encompassing Billboard Comprehensive Albums chart, as opposed to the newer-skewing Billboard 200–but they’re still worth noting, particularly since (as Chris Molanphy pointed out to me) these numbers might eventually represent a moment when lots of casual music consumers hit up digital-music outlets for the first time. Late last night, Billboard ran an item presaging Jackson’s return to pop-chart dominance, and it noted that the potential for digital sales were high:
The bulk of Jackson’s album sales came from digital retailers, as many brick and mortar stores quickly ran out of available stock. Sources say his “Essential Michael Jackson,” “Number Ones” and “Thriller” each sold more than 30,000 digital albums, with “Essential” moving more than 70,000 downloads alone.
Digital sales totals will be broken out more comprehensively when tomorrow’s full SoundScan charts are released, but given the numbers proffered by Hits, I wouldn’t be surprised if Number Ones broke at least the 50k mark on digital sales alone. (I personally bought Off The Wall, Bad, and a handful of cherry-picked album tracks; my vinyl copies of the former two were unavailable, and I really wanted to hear “Another Part Of Me” even more than Kiss 98.7 was spinning it. And I should probably mention that I purchased both volumes of “Weird Al” Yankovic’s Greatest Hits, too.) All these sales might have the added effect of helping ease at least some of Jackson’s financial problems, as well.
It’s also worth noting that the top current album–the Black Eyed Peas’ The E.N.D.–didn’t break the six-figure mark according to Hits‘ tallies. Even with the whole Perez incident! Man, does last Monday seem like forever ago or what?
Building Album Sales Chart [Hits]
Surge in Jackson sales allays debt fears [FT]
Yeah, I had the thought that this might be a watershed moment in music purchasing, because for the first time you have the event that seems to create the strongest impulse purchasing behavior (the death of a major artist) with what, to this point, is the ultimate delivery method for such buying.
One other thought:
As I dearly wished in my column last Friday, Thriller is going to see the kind of boost this summer that could finally push it past the Eagles’ Greatest Hits to recapture the U.S. certification title. It’s only a million-ish short right now.
Now, the 107,000 in sales reported above isn’t going to remotely close the gap. However: here’s where the RIAA’s goofy math/policies work in our favor. Platinum certifications are done by shipments, not by actual sales. This week’s Soundscans don’t actually matter at all. What matters is the news that Sony is rapidly pressing and shipping thousands of new Thrillers as we speak.
As soon as those shipments are booked, and assuming no major returns, within a few months Sony can request recertification from the RIAA. I dunno if Sony’s shipping a million copies of the album this week, but even if it’s half a million, that plus whatever else was in the pipeline could be enough to do the trick.
Again, as I said on Friday, fingers crossed…
You cannot have Bad in your collection without also having the essential companion piece Even Worse.
Still can’t believe that Eagles crap. There was some song with Henley singing at Taco Bell today. What a boring, boring, boring singer. I’m not a big fan of Jackson, just the hit singles for me, but he was such a talented singer that it’s depressing to me that the Eagles are ahead.
By the time McCartney gets his chunk of the Beatles catalog it may be out of debt :)
I bought Essential Michael Jackson…had the same problem as you, Maura. Only MJ was on vinyl or cassette(Dangerous and Bad).
I purchased Essential on iTunes, and it was only the 3rd album I’ve ever bought that way since first getting my iPod 5 years ago. Afterward, I had to ask myself why I haven’t been buying music that way all along(although if Virgin was still open right by me, I probably would’ve headed there first).
Platinum certifications are done by shipments, not by actual sales.
I’m confused. Does this actually mean for digital copies don’t count towards the total? I’m sure that can’t be true and I’m just misunderstanding your point. Does the 107K plus count toward catching the Eagles or not? Assuming it does, when are those numbers “booked” on to Thriller’s total. (Sorry if I’m missing something really obvious here, but like you, it really bugs me that a greatest hits collections could count as the best selling album of all time.)
@MayhemintheHood: Afterward, I had to ask myself why I haven’t been buying music that way all along
I was asking myself that same question at the beginning of the year when Amazon began offering some of the best albums of 2008 for $5. I don’t think I’ve bought a physical cd since. Also, I’m now wondering what to do with my old cds. I probably have over 1000, all purchased with my hard earned cash. I have them all backed up on two different hard drives, so I probably will never need the cds again and they are just taking up room in my closet. I’m wondering if I should take them to Amoeba and get some cash while there still is a market for the physical product. Even at $1 a cd, there might be some good money there.
(Maura, maybe a post about what people are doing with their cds is in order. Just a thought.)
@How do I say this…Throwdini!?!: It’s a good question, and sorry, the way I wrote the above was a bit misleading. Yes, digital albums count.
The policy ever since iTunes went online is that, if you buy a “bundle” of songs designated as an album — from iTunes, Amazon, etc. — then the industry, Soundscan, Billboard, etc. track it as an album for charting and certification purposes. So digital Thrillers are just as good as shipped Thrillers for Sony’s purposes.
I dunno what the rule on timing is, but I would guess that digital albums are reported to the RIAA by the labels for certification at the same time as shipments. It’s a strange system, since one number represents an actual sale while the other represents a potential sale; but the RIAA isn’t going to change the shipment rule for physical product now.
(Maura, maybe a post about what people are doing with their cds is in order. Just a thought.)
I love you for giving me this idea in time for a long weekend :)
Can we admit that this is just Michael Jackson vs. the fucking Eagles? I’m sensing some disingenuousness when people here are saying “the best selling album should be an ALBUM, not a GREATEST HITS package!!”.
What if the situation was the converse? Eagles’ Hotel California was number one, and we wanted Michael Jackson’s Number Ones to overtake it (again)? Would you be defending the Eagles?
@mackro: I think there’s two things going on in this situation: 1) MJ vs. Eagles and 2) Album vs. Compilation
Yes, there’s plenty of people who can’t stand the Eagles (and I’m not gonna argue over personal taste), but I’ve got a feeling that the people complaining about a compilation being #1 would be upset regardless of the artist (at least I hope so, cuz otherwise it’s a bit hypocritical, no?).
Personally, I think it’s kinda silly to get riled up about the whole compilation/album issue in the first place. I mean, in a world where the industry is bottoming out (partly) thanks to our ability to save $20 and get only the songs we *actually want* … of *course* there’s gonna be a good deal of compliations leading the charts! Can that really be a surprise?
I don’t wanna put words in others’ mouths, but to be honest, whether someone’s upset because it’s the Eagles or because it’s a comp, I think it boils down to basically the same issue: hardcore music fiends (I’m trying to avoid slipping into negative name-calling) who are upset that our top selling disc is a symbol of the “average American” (i.e., people who enjoy repetition/familiarity in what they listen to, see music as background for other tasks, etc…you know, the Wal-Mart shoppers who outnumber independent record store shoppers a hundred to one).
Not trying to be snarky or stir up trouble; that’s just honestly the vibe I get. Seems like a stratification issue. I’d love to be proven wrong; anyone care to explain what’s wrong with a compilation (any compilation) holding the record?
anyone care to explain what’s wrong with a compilation (any compilation) holding the record?
First, while I will admit to loving Michael Jackson, I am agnostic on the Eagles, and don’t really care about them one way or another. I don’t even consider them to make the music of an “average American” that should be looked down upon by music snobs, but rather just older music that my parents liked that I never really got into.
My bias out of the way, to me, its just that a great hits compilation seems like cheating. Of course people will buy a greatest hits album, as it represents great songs made over an extended period of time. But its really a celebration of an artist, not an album, which, to me at least, is what the greatest selling album of all time should be — a celebration of an album. Thriller sold so many albums because Quincy Jones and MJ came together to make a whole bunch of fantastic songs at once. The Eagles sold so many albums because they had a lot of hit songs. There is a distinct difference in those two scenerios.
A comparison might be Barry Bonds/Mark McGwire/Sammy Sosa v. Lou Gehrig. Yeah, Gehrig is no longer the single season home run king, but those other guys had to cheat a bit to hit more than 61 homeruns. Yeah, they still hit the home runs, but the record counts a little less because of means by which they got there.
Has anyone ever asked the Eagles for their thoughts on the matter? Or if they would make a difference to them to know that they released an album of entirely new songs that sold as much as Thriller or their own greatest hits collection.
@Chris Molanphy: Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense. I wonder if iTunes reports the “complete my album” says for certification, or if since they were purchased at different times, it doesn’t count.
@How do I say this…Throwdini!?!: I agree with you, but I think you might have meant to say Roger Maris, not Gehrig.
The fact is, a “best of” or “greatest hits” isn’t an album. I could go in depth like Throwdini or others, but I don’t think that even needs explanation. I think it’s dumb that those are counted towards #1 album sales. If I asked someone what their favorite Bowie album is, and they said Changes, I’d say “No, what’s your favorite ALBUM?”. Same in this case, although I know Idolator has a lot of chart junkies, but I’d say “No, that’s a greatest hits…I asked whats the greatest selling ALBUM”.
@MayhemintheHood: Crap, you’re right. I mixed up my dead Yankees. That’s an unforgivable mistake given how much I love baseball. Maybe I’ll make myself watch a Nationals’ game as punishment.
@How do I say this…Throwdini!?!: Hey man, anybody’s mistake. ;) Don’t watch a Nats game though. That’s just wrong.
@MayhemintheHood: Well, a Nats game is bad, but at least it’s not the Mets - that would be torture! ;)
Just for the purpose of devil advocatry; should the Eagles perhaps get credit for the 4 or 5 albums before the Greatest Hits album? After all, their sales must have cut sharply into potential GH sales.
Not that I think that matters saleswise. One could make the argument that Thriller is the superior artistic statement, but that’s an entirely different story.
Also, I’m quite certain that 70% of all Eagles hatred, rather than merely not-liking, is based on The Big Lewbowski
@ How do I say this & Mayheminthehood: OK, I can buy that logic. I guess I just never got that exacting in my thoughts on that chart (and this is coming from someone who’s got a massive Word file that tracks every song/album I’ve got chronologically from December 1920 to last Tuesday, so yes, I can sympathize with the concept of specificity).
In fact, I totally agree, it’s much cooler to be able to point to a specific “achievement” like Thriller than a career’s worth of hits that are thrown together. But it just doesn’t bother me *that* much.
I guess the only solution would be if they created separate sales charts for albums & comps.
But (speaking of Michael) THEN the problem would be, how the hell would we track sales for hybrid products like HIStory? :\
Speaking for myself I’m no particular fan of either Jackson or the Eagles (though if I had to pick one to listen to it would be Jackson).
I’m in the “Compilations shouldn’t count” camp. If the case were Hotel California -vs- Essential MJ I would be on the side of Hotel California.
@k-rex: I’ve disliked The Eagles for far longer than Lewbowski (which I’ve never seen) has existed.
@perfectomix: “separate sales charts for albums & comps.”
I think that’s a great solution. It would also hopefully discourage labels from issuing more compilations from an artist than albums of original material. OK, probably not, but I can dream.
Thriller’s a more exciting listen than the Eagles’ Greatest Hits, but it’s also a more exciting story — the videos, the moonwalk, the general hysteria surrounding Michael Jackson in ‘83-’84. The Eagles were extremely popular, but to me at least, they don’t define their era like Michael Jackson did his.
I think the best baseball comparison is Babe Ruth vs. Hank Aaron, with MJ in the Babe Ruth role. Aaron didn’t have any outstanding years; from what it seems like, people just looked up one day and he was closing in on 700 home runs. I don’t know the figures, but I’m guessing the Eagles got their sales the same way. So I don’t think it’s a matter of album vs. greatest-hits package — it’s a preference for the fervor of a specific cultural moment over a steady trickle of buyers going “Hey, ‘Witchy Woman,’” shrugging and tossing it in the cart alongside the laundry detergent.*
* rash generalization
This must have been in print, it was sometime ago, but I seem to recall at one point the anticipation that the Eagles would soon out sell Michael Jackson; thus scoring a victory for good old test-of-time music over pop flash-in-the-pan. Don’t know if this is apropro. But I find it interesting.
@Maura: Only if you tell me how to post a picture in my comment!
@Chris Molanphy: MJ (over at MJ’sbigblog) also noted today that Jackson has also taken the record back from American Idol for “number of digital top ten slots held at once” that David Cook set last year.
@k-rex: at what point was MJ considered a flash-in-the-pan, though?
@Chris or someone who knows: “gotta feeling” (thankfully) overtook “boom boom pow” on the hot 100, and no Jackson songs are up there. Is there a lag in singles sales reporting or something? I feel like his songs should be all over the top 10 based on sales alone (and I’m sure airplay has spiked considerably as well).
These comments have no dates so I have no idea if anybody will be back but to answer this:
“I dunno what the rule on timing is, but I would guess that digital albums are reported to the RIAA by the labels for certification at the same time as shipments. It’s a strange system, since one number represents an actual sale while the other represents a potential sale; but the RIAA isn’t going to change the shipment rule for physical product now.”
They are indeed. Once you get the right number of shipments, you grab those and the digital figures, send them all to the legal firm the RIAA uses, and within a day or two they let you know you’re certified.
The problem with the “sales to customer” rule is that it can only come from SoundScan which uses a formula to extrapolate sales from stores that don’t report to them. Although shipments are fakey, SoundScan numbers are fakier. The truly funhouse stuff starts when you see SoundScan sales that are higher than shipments (happens more often than you think).