Chart longevity

pjfanman wrote:

If the released FON, they'd have yet another hit on their hands.

All of my friends who are not PJ fans seem to love that tune.

BF25394 wrote:

Veddernarian wrote:

I guess, now, it's time to hope for a '*' for re-entry. While looking at the 181-200 range, I noticed Dark Side of the Moon still hanging in there with 761 weeks on the charts. I'll do the math so you don't have to bother, that's 14 1/2 years. I'm sure that's on and off several times. I would think that with Amongst the waves in mid-may, and the tour, we have a pretty good shot at at least a limited time of re-entry.

Those 761 weeks don't even tell the whole story. From March 1991 to December 2009, "catalog" (i.e., older) albums like "Dark Side" were not eligible for the Billboard 200. In all likelihood, "Dark Side" would have remained in the top 200 for most of that time period (as evidenced by its long run on the Top Catalog Albums chart during that span) and would have something like 1,700 weeks on the Billboard 200 now.

As you note, "Backspacer" falls out of the Billboard 200 for the first time this week. However, if Billboard still had the same chart policy it had from 1991 to 2009, "Backspacer" would still be on the chart for a 32nd week at roughly No. 176. This is worth noting when comparing its chart longevity with other Pearl Jam albums, all of which enjoyed an extra week or more on the charts that they wouldn't have if catalog albums had been eligible to chart. For example, if "Yield" were charting under today's rules, it probably would have lasted only 34 weeks instead of 36, because its last two weeks on the chart were at No. 180 and No. 199. Typically, there are more than 20 catalog albums in the top 200.

BF25394 wrote:

fox_mulderX wrote:

to BF25394

what determines whether or not a band releases a single? i would assume that if a band is under a label, the company would be the one to choose and release it, but pj isn't under a label. wouldn't they release as many singles as they want to promote the album? or are there other factors that come into play that?

I'm not sure I understand the question. If you're asking who decides what to release as a single-- the record label or the artist-- the answer is, "It depends." Typically, the label will consult with the artist, although the label will usually have the final say. The more clout the artist has, the more control the artist has over those kinds of decisions. The artist may also have more control with a smaller or independent label.

But the designation of "singles" is something of an obsolete concept these days. Singles used to be physical product-- first 45s, later (and, mercifully, briefly) cassette singles and, finally, CD singles. Now the single is just a download and, theoretically, except for those few artists who don't allow their songs to be individually downloaded, anything can be a "single." Thus, in today's world, the "single" concept really just means "track for radio play." The label may send a physical CD single to radio stations to encourage them to play a particular track but, theoretically, a song can get radio play organically because program directors or DJs choose to play it without it having been promoted by the record company. This is increasingly rare as very few radio DJs have control over what they play anymore. It's all determined back at corporate headquarters of CBS or Clear Channel after heavy market research and focus group testing.

Even though Pearl Jam is not with a record company, they have someone working for them who works their songs to radio. This may amount to nothing more than putting CDs of "Amongst The Waves" in envelopes and mailing them out to stations, or it could involve calls/e-mails/faxes to program directors, or other promotions. My sense is that promotion of "Backspacer" was fairly bare bones-- send out the CDs to radio and "Que sera sera," but I don't know for sure.

Veddernarian wrote:

It's back. #191. We got an **