Re: Billboard, Nov. 20

["Jerry Mahone" <p00792@psilink.com>]

[Ed Suranyi writes:]

[snip]

>A word about the album charts, particularly for those in Britain who
>aren't familiar with the situation.  Billboard changed the method it
>uses to determine those charts in 1991.  Before then, the charts were
>determining by surveying a representative sample of record stores.
>Now, a company called SoundScan actually tracks album sales as they
>are purchased, by electronic links to stores' cash registers.  When
>this system was first introduced, the chart changed substantially.
>Many people complained at the beginning that SoundScan was not hooked
>up to a large enough number of independent stores and stores in the
>San Francisco Bay Area, for example, both of which sell more alternative
>music than other stores.  SoundScan promised that this problem would
>be fixed as more and more stores went on-line, and indeed, judging
>from the debut position of the album, they seem to have kept their
>word.
>
>Here's the point:  In the old system an album of moderate popularity,
>such as a Kate album, would start in the middle of the chart, then
>slowly move up the chart to peak some time later.  Hounds of Love,
>The Sensual World, and (to a lesser extent) The Whole Story all 
>followed this pattern.  But with the new system of tracking album
>sales instantly, that doesn't happen as much any more.  So, many
>albums now debut at what turns out to be their peak positions.  
>If the old system was still in use, and the album debuted at no. 28,
>we could REALLY be excited, because it would have meant that the
>album would almost certainly have peaked in the top 20.  But now,
>28 may be the peak.  We'll just have to wait and see.
>

Good point.

My two cents:
Here in Atlanta, 99.7 (99X - WNNX) has been playing RBG and EtM.  The
radio section of my car CD/tuner has been randomly switching over to CD 
mode and then off (when it has no CD to eat).  Maybe it's hungry, but 
at any rate, my temporary solution is to just play CDs more often.  
Point being that this station may well be playing other tracks, but I 
haven't been keeping up as much lately.

As far as everyone's blow by blow on which tracks "suck" and which 
tracks are the "best ever recorded," give me a break.  You might 
suggest if I don't want to read these postings to either don't read them
or just quit the newsgroup.  Well, my suggestion would be (and is) to 
have a voluntary subject line etiquette:

NEWS:  for news related to the newsgroup, such as sightings, new releases,
       video, concert (ha!) dates, etc.
CRITIC:  for criticism
QUESTIONS: for questions about NEWS, etc.
COLLECT:  for collectibles questions and offerings
SPOILER:  for spoilers, obviously
.02:  your 2 cents, when it's not under the more specific CRITIC:

...and on and on.  This is done (usually by moderator) in other 
newsgroups, but I can't understand why we couldn't play together on this.

I know, flame bait.  After all, this posting doesn't follow suit.  If 
people think this is an okay idea, I promise I'll do my part from my 
next post onward.  Why am I making such a big deal?  Frankly, I just 
get worn out reading all the negative stuff.  I've never been terribly 
comfortable reading art criticism from "professional critics," but I 
especially have a problem reading all the criticism from "us average 
hacks."  I figure any artist has more talent than me (or at least 
99.9%), so who am I to launch into a tirade.  Certainly it's valid to 
say things like "I thought this song was a little dark, or that song 
was a bit to repetitious"; however, I think this group has gotten a 
little carried away.  Hey, I know you're all passionate about KB's 
music, but ...

Anyway, I'll shut up.  Like I said at the beginning, this is just my 2 
cents worth, and in the future, I would use .02: in the subject!


Sincerely,
Jerry Mahone
p00792@psilink.com
Dis:  My company doesn't have access to the net, so I'm a proclaimer...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------