> >>the chart in question is a sales chart, and the absence of a
> promoted-to-radio single is utterly irrelevant.
>
> Why is this true? It doesn't sound unreasonable that a single being
> promoted to country radio would have an impact on sales.
I have no doubt that's so, but whatever sells more copies than #20 on the
chart and fewer than #18 on the chart should appear at #19 on a sales-based
chart, regardless of whether there's a single being promoted. As I noted,
this was the case with Skaggs' Bluegrass Rules! just last year.
> Yes it is a sales only charts, but a single promoted to radio is not
irrelevant to
> whether or not someone in the business knows the record is out, especially
at
> retail.
As the article noted, presence on the chart is one way that folks at retail
know a record's out, regardless of whether a single's being promoted.
> It was mentioned as to perhaps a reason thet the Billboard editor missed
> it in the first place.
As I noted, Billboard had published a "spotlight" review of the album on
January 23 (http://www.billboard.com/reviews/reviewdisplay.asp?ID=49012 ).
Furthermore, without getting into a whole lot of detail, I know for a fact
that Billboard's country chart guy was aware of, and interested in, the
album just a couple of weeks before the release date. I suspect - though I
have no way of knowing at this point, especially considering that the
original source is still to be determined - that the problem occurred
elsewhere, and the lame reasons offered are more in the nature of
finger-pointing than of fact.
In any event, assuming that the story's correct, it's pretty outrageous.
The whole point of the album chart is that it's supposed to be objective,
based on SoundScan sales counts, and the country chart is the only
reasonable place to put the album.
Jon Weisberger Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger/
