|
|
More Bogus Data From the Music Bizby George Ziemann -- September 27, 2009 Yesterday, I discovered that the top selling records in the country are NOT what appears in Billboard's Top 200. What is it about the music industry that makes them unable to tell the truth about anything?? In a nutshell, an album older than 18 months is ineligible for the Top 200, which became obvious this week when the Beatles' reissues should have dominated an accurate sales report and were conspicuously absent. There is another list that reflects reality, but it's behind a pay wall. What they offer to the general public is a lie. For some reason, this annoys me on a much deeper level than suing people too stupid to stop sharing RIAA music. Perhaps it is because I understand that the intended target of the deception is the artists themselves. Assuming a contract with the cartel members, if your album is less than a year and a half old, you're still paying back the advance. It's okay to let you bask in the glory of sales you already got paid for, but if Don Henley knows another 200,000 copies of Hotel California were sold, he's gonna want to see a check. The secondary target is the record-buying public. The overall intent is pretty similar in that albums which are still selling (but may be earning actual royalties now) are obscured to promote what is new. That's worked pretty well until this year. Between Michael Jackson and the Beatles, the manipulation became painfully obvious. Billboard justifies their behavior with a typical music industry non-response: "We have a zillion different charts.'' While that may be true, therein lies the problem. There a lame excuse about the difference betwen the "Pop" charts and the Comprehensive charts. "Pop" means "popular." Those records which sell the most are the most popular. Shouldn't the Top 200 represent the top 200? From the Boston Globe story:
Without criticizing Mello, let's look at the question he poses. "Do you want a chart that's just filled with 'Dark Side of the Moon' and 'Hotel California' to the exclusion of anybody else even getting noticed?'' Point 1 -- This is supposed to be a sales chart, not a radio playlist or a critic's choice selection. "Getting noticed" is a prerequisite to selling enough records to show up on the sales charts, not the purpose of the charts. Point 2 -- If an accurate Top 200 list was, in fact, dominated by releases from the 60s and 70s, and again remembering that these are sales, that would seem to be a significant statement about the real impact (or lack thereof) of today's music. Point 3 -- At some point in time, everyone who wants one will possess a copy of Dark Side of the Moon, Hotel California, and Abbey Road. To be completely honest, I'm surprised that we're not there yet. Point 4 -- Haven't we been lied to enough already? |
|