best-selling albums according to Rolling Stone Mag Feb 1984

[Partridge]

Looking back to the Feb 2, 1984 issue of Rolling Stone Magazine, this is what they reported to be the best selling albums at that time. This was before they started using the Billboard stats.

[erik]

Hmmm...very interestink (sic) (as Artie Johnson used to say on Laugh-In).

Especially since, when the magazine reviewed it, they were not exactly complimentary about What's New.

[Deleted]

It is painfully embarrassing how much pop music has deteriorated... besides Linda, the charts featured Dylan, the Stones and Michael Jackson. Take a look at the charts today if you want to be horrified...

[erik]

I personally think that, pretty much from the late 1980s up to this very second, with a few exceptions, the quality of music has been really lousy all the way around.

[fabtastique]

Very well deserved, that album and the music it contains is timeless. And to say pop music has deteriorated since is an understatement - I can barely listen to anything from new artists ..... All auto tuned mindless drivel with nonsensical lyrics. Always. Few exceptions of course but they are few and far between....

[Guest]

I think music since the late 1970's has been awful with a few exceptions. The 90's was somewhat better but then there was a steep decline.

[MokyWI]

I remember seeing this chart when the magazine was delivered to me. I was confused at how it was number 3 on billboard at its height and 1 in Rolling Stone. Who knows, maybe What's New would have made it to the billboard top spot had they been doing sound scan back then. I know the record stores I frequented all said the album What's New was out selling everything else the first of February 1984. It was a big surprise to the shop owners I spoke with. I was so happy for Linda, I thought after Get Closer's poor performance compared to everything since Heart Like a Wheel that What's New was going to be a big disappointment sales wise. It turned out to be one of the best selling albums of her entire career.

Lord how I miss the day's of album buying. Independent shops everywhere. I also loved it when I had no idea of a new Ronstadt album coming out and going in on Tuesday like I did every Tuesday back then and finding a new release from Ronstadt. The excitement was almost to much. I remember the owner of Greenlaw's Music in Laconia NH and The Rainbow Shop in Belfast Maine allowing me to take a new release home when the surprises happened and I didn't have the money on that day. They knew I would be in the next day to pay for it and ask how it was selling. I used to go in my favorite music shops several times a week and spend at lest thirty minutes flipping the bins. Most of my checks from Burger King in high school went to records. My parents didn't mind considering how much I listened to my music. They loved seeing me so focused on something constructive. Nothing else held my attention from the age of 5-18.

I have always wondered why many artist get to #2 on the singles chart but never make it to the top spot. Linda did this several times with singles. Only "You're No Good" was given the credit. I think there were other things that came into play that kept some of her other singles that made it to #2 from the top spot. Does anyone know if the album What's New made it to the #1 spot in Cashbox Magazine?

[erik]

Quote by MikeKoecher:

I remember seeing this chart when the magazine was delivered to me. I was confused at how it was number 3 on billboard at its height and 1 in Rolling Stone. Who knows, maybe What's New would have made it to the billboard top spot had they been doing sound scan back then.

If you zoom in on the article, you may notice in the fine print that the survey was conducted of "rock-oriented record stores" (whatever that meant in the winter of 1984). And this is what I find so ironic that What's New would top the album chart of a magazine that didn't show much love towards Linda's first excursion into the big-bamd/Great American Songbook genre

[MokyWI]

I know Erik, I thought the same thing. Why would Rolling Stone put her at number #1? If I remember correctly Rolling Stone once used Cash Box Magazine for their charts. I could be mistaken. I couldn't continue saving all my issues after I got to the age of twenty. I bought all back issues on a DVD Box Set Rolling Stone put out. That was great to have them all downloaded on my computer to look at when I wanted. Now with using Mac's I have no way of downloading those DVD's. I still have a subscription to the magazine and when Rolling Stone was first online up until a few years back you could access all back issues by registering your subscription and creating a user name/password. I can't find any place on their site now to access an archive except for covers.

[MokyWI]

I just figured out how to install the Cover to Cover DVD Boxed set that has all the back issues up until May 2007 on my new iMac! Thanks for the feed, otherwise I would have not continued to try having given up long ago. I am not real computer savvy, so I hope I have screwed up my iMac. But the issues are readable or at least the first disk I have in is.

[JasonKlose]

Jun 3, 2015 22:02:46 GMT -5 fabtastique said:

Very well deserved, that album and the music it contains is timeless. And to say pop music has deteriorated since is an understatement - I can barely listen to anything from new artists ..... All auto tuned mindless drivel with nonsensical lyrics. Always. Few exceptions of course but they are few and far between....

I totally agree with you on all points. I don't even bother with the pop music of today......frankly I don't even care. No need to torture myself when I can listen to all the music I grew up with and have been playing over and over for years. It would be nice if some things could work in cycles......if we could get good quality music again. But the '50s, '60s, '70s and '80s are long gone, and sadly, that's an era that we will never see again in our lifetimes.