Billboard has announced changes in some of their album charts for the coming year. Aside from a rearrangement of how the R&B album chart is counted and the addition of a Folk Music chart (how that will be defined seems open to question), the biggest change is in the Top 200 Albums chart, which will now be based solely on sales, regardless of release date. Since 1991, Billboard has taken albums that were over two years old (later amended to 18 months) off the chart. In the last year, however, especially after the death of Michael Jackson (now the biggest selling artist of the year) and the release of the Beatles Remasters, that formula has been called into question (the change only affects the Top 200; all the other album charts will still drop LPs over 18 months old).
It’s not a surprise decision. People have been murmuring about the chart not being an honest reflection of popularity for a while now, and since the record labels are probably making more money off of re-issues these days than new releases, it will provide a more accurate reflection of commercial realities, as well. We’ll be seeing a lot more MJ and Beatles (not to mention Bob Marley, Creedence, and The Eagles), which isn’t necessarily a good thing, but we’ll also be seeing a lot fewer albums that have barely scraped 20,000 sold in the top ten.
It may not be what the record labels want (they were the biggest supporters of the exclusionary rule, since it put more focus on new releases), but at least it will give everyone a better idea of what the public wants, and it also seems to play into Billboard’s own business development plan. I can’t help but wonder if Billboard’s decision isn’t partly driven by the fact that they now make the entire Top 200 available on their website, with links to purchase charted albums. Not only will it be less confusing to the layman audience that comes by their site, but it also ensures that only the most popular records are available for sale. I’m sure the editorial/commercial divide at Billboard is fairly strict, but the company has been slowly moving toward becoming not just an information provider, but a player in the music business itself (a move that’s even more direct outside the US, where Billboard stages awards shows and owns concert venues). I still trust their numbers, but more and more I’m beginning to doubt their motives.
