Comments on: Michael Jackson Owns The Charts Once Again

By: MagicJewball

MagicJewball — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:01:42 +0000

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).

By: chachwitablog

chachwitablog — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:12:53 +0000

@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).

By: anibundel

anibundel — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:32:10 +0000

@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.

By: anibundel

anibundel — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:24:05 +0000

@Maura: Only if you tell me how to post a picture in my comment!

By: k-rex

k-rex — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:26:17 +0000

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.

By: Name The Bats

Name The Bats — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:10:49 +0000

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

By: revmatty

revmatty — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:35:14 +0000

@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.

By: revmatty

revmatty — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:32:35 +0000

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.

By: perfectomix

perfectomix — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:32:24 +0000

@ 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? :\

By: k-rex

k-rex — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:16:10 +0000

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