Comments on: Michael Jackson outsells everyone; ‘NOW! 31′ tops the albums chart anyway

By: wrong!

wrong! — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:04:24 +0000

people are going to refer to the top 200 only. for not letting mj chart is totally wrong and robbing him of his title.
this does not reflect the sales wrong!!!

By: Annie

Annie — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 07:35:13 +0000

I hope the money is going to the kids, too. I am afraid of buying anything right now because I don’t know who will truly be capitalizing off it. I wonder if there is a way to find out where the money from the sales of even his old CD’s will go. I am worried about some money grubbing group like AEG making money off it. Does anyone know anything about it?

By: No to Chris Sligh

No to Chris Sligh — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:16:33 +0000

I hope the money from these sales is going to the children. Right?

By: Mike M

Mike M — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:24:26 +0000

Dark Side of the Moon was actually on the top 200 for 14 years, FYI. It and Thriller were the main reasons the top 200 no longer includes catalogue releases. It does seem a little silly, but for marketing purposes, a list of “current” albums is probably more important–and it gives new bands a fairer shake.
For what it’s worth, a current view (rather than the snapshot posted above) of the comprehensive chart can be viewed at http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/chart_display.jsp?g=Albums&f=Billboard+Comprehensive+Albums .

By: Matt2

Matt2 — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:45:06 +0000

When it comes to rankings in entertainment, whether it is music or tv or some other aspect of the industry, the media outlets ought to seek out validity in the reporting. Just because you currently have an accepted concensus of how the rankings should be reported does not mean there’s any foundation of truth in the end result. Thus, you get a report that inaccurately lists the top selling albums of the week. It is amazing that the number one selling album by a country mile won’t get the acknowledgement where it counts for such a mind blowing feat. With cash registers around the country in music stores and departments ringing up historically big sales, I do wonder where this information will be recorded and acknowledged.

By: bj

bj — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:21:47 +0000

that's really a great album: http://www.nowgoal.com/21.shtml

By: Matt2

Matt2 — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 04:42:28 +0000

That now takes the cake as the most idiotic rule ever established by record keepers. Congratulations to Billboard on becoming members of the When Morons Ruled the World Society. Truly an amazing accomplishment since they had to beat out the tv industry for their asinine tv ratings data system that actually provides for greater monetary rewards for tv shows with low overall total viewers but top demographic numbers. In other words, true popularity doesn’t count for squat using these ridiculous counting methods. So, great shows like Without A Trace that pull in 12 million viewers but only 2 million 18-34 year olds gets canned while a show like True Beauty only pulls in 7 million total viewers but 3 .5 million of them are 18-34 year olds making it a hit show by those standards. Wrong!!! Likewise in music, Billboard can legitimately report erroneously that NOW 31 was the highest selling album of the week. It time for someone, some network, some music empire to take a stand for truth.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:15:17 +0000

Pretty archaic rule, if you ask me. Catalog albums rarely reach the numbers attained by the Top 200, so why not acknowledge the rare occasion it actually happens?

By: steve

steve — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:54:29 +0000

Please stop reporting on this crap.

By: Bill

Bill — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:37:43 +0000

Billboard does have a Top Comprehensive Albums chart that combines older titles and newer "Hot" titles. The link below shows a screenshot of this week's sales chart : http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/photos/stylus/97333-michaeljackson_pp_02l.jpg