I like da Young HOV.

with Jay Z's recent #1 album he tied the Rolling Stones with his 9th #1 album and only trails Elvis and the Beatles for most #1 albums... thats right! fuckin Jay Z is in THAT catagory! that is so wrong...shame on billboard for changing the way the charts were counted in 1991..now it totally screwed up the history of the charts
[Edited 11/30/06 18:57pm]

Mazerati said:

Hey, if he sold that many #1's, he deserves it. I can't deny that I am NOT a hip hop music fan, but sales are sales.

MrHappyRave4 said:

thats not the thing....before 1991 albums sales were counted totally different..that would be like in baseball giving every player steroids and wiping out the whole record books with the new inflated numbers

Mazerati said:

umm tell me wuts the difference, you buy the record and it gets recorded, what so different now

MrHappyRave4 said:

thats not the thing....before 1991 albums sales were counted totally different..that would be like in baseball giving every player steroids and wiping out the whole record books with the new inflated numbers

I listened to his CD and it is so boring nothing new. I officially gave up on hip hop after 1999, with the except of a few songs, so I didnt expected too much from Jay-z even if his best work was from the late 90s. Nope I didnt own the cd I borrow from my oldest brother.

But I give Jay-z his congrats for his CD sold over 700000 copies and counting. But folks on the forums dissed his cd badly. He should have stay retired.

Mazerati said:

before 1991, they weren't as accurate, so your point is really that Elvis, the Beatles and the Stones should have fewer #1 albums than Jay-Z

KidOmega said:

no had they counted the albums the way they do today they would have had many more #1 albums it was MUCH harder to get a #1 prior to 1991

Mazerati said:

No, that's the contrary.

If Soundscan existed before 1991, Elvis and the Beatles would have had far less #1s than today and black and country artists would have had more. Soundscan is the most accurate form of sales tabulation.
Before Soundscan, Billboard ringed just a national sample of mass retailers, but ignored core outlets, which penalised country and black artists because their fans bought their records in independant stores.
Hence , a man like Luther Vandross struggled to make the national Billboard's Top 10 but could go 3x platinum. Same thing for George Strait in Country music.
Soundscan actually revealed to national stores and media outlets that America was hungry for alternative acts such as NWA or Garth brooks, who were competing with more visible superstars such as Madonna.

MrHappyRave4 said:

thats not the thing....before 1991 albums sales were counted totally different..that would be like in baseball giving every player steroids and wiping out the whole record books with the new inflated numbers

speeddemon said:

very true...but the charts are far less exciting to look at now hehe

It really comes down to folks that wouldn't know the difference between a Jay-Z and a Jim Jones, commenting on how much they hate hip-hop...It's hard to take it seriously...

I listened to his CD and it is so boring nothing new. I officially gave up on hip hop after 1999, with the except of a few songs, so I didnt expected too much from Jay-z even if his best work was from the late 90s. Nope I didnt own the cd I borrow from my oldest brother.

But I give Jay-z his congrats for his CD sold over 700000 copies and counting. But folks on the forums dissed his cd badly. He should have stay retired.

Well i hate to rain on the "Soundscan is so Acuurate parade", but i was part of the business pre-soundscan and during soundscan, and really the only thing that changed is the way that the labels manipulate their chart positions. OK here it is plain and simple, SOUNDSCAN is a tracking of SALES "TO" retail outlets, not a tracking of what people are buying over the counter. How do i know this? well i worked with a buyer during my final years at a retail chain before they started closing up locations, and she basically gave me the whole break down and the way labels Manipulate chart positions by getting stores to buy more stock at discount prices and things like that, its called "Dumping", this is what SONY was accused of back in 1999 when it shipped out copies of singles by Mariah Carey and Destinys Child at 50 cents to get number one debuts, obviously stores bought TONS of this. So heres where the manipulating comes in, a few years ago there was an album by Jay Z/R Kelly, now out buyer knew it was going to sell, but not be a big seller, so for our company she wanted to buy 50,000 and spread that to all the stores, DEF JAM stepped in and said we want you to buy 125,000, but we will cut you a discount, instead of selling it to you 12 bucks a CD we will give it to you for 9 buck per cd, so when she said to them "Its not going to sell that well" the label said dont worry, whatver you dont sell we will take back and credit you 12 bucks a CD credit, "we just want to ship a million and get number one", this is called buying a chart position. Basically labels want the number one debut, its all they care about.

So im not saying that artists that have been huge in the soundscan era like a Jayz, or the pop icons, dont sell, they do, but it is alot less than you may think. What soundscan also doesnt figure is the amount of CDS that get sent back to the label "pulldowns" as we call it, none of that is minused from soundscan totals or the Riaa totals. So saying the Beatles would have less sales today because of tracking is not accurate, you also have to consider they were putting out 2-3 cds a year early on, and always one a year after that, there is NO WAY any artist today could do that, consistently and still sell.
[Edited 12/1/06 14:04pm]

Well i hate to rain on the "Soundscan is so Acuurate parade", but i was part of the business pre-soundscan and during soundscan, and really the only thing that changed is the way that the labels manipulate their chart positions. OK here it is plain and simple, SOUNDSCAN is a tracking of SALES "TO" retail outlets, not a tracking of what people are buying over the counter. How do i know this? well i worked with a buyer during my final years at a retail chain before they started closing up locations, and she basically gave me the whole break down and the way labels Manipulate chart positions by getting stores to buy more stock at discount prices and things like that, its called "Dumping", this is what SONY was accused of back in 1999 when it shipped out copies of singles by Mariah Carey and Destinys Child at 50 cents to get number one debuts, obviously stores bought TONS of this. So heres where the manipulating comes in, a few years ago there was an album by Jay Z/R Kelly, now out buyer knew it was going to sell, but not be a big seller, so for our company she wanted to buy 50,000 and spread that to all the stores, DEF JAM stepped in and said we want you to buy 125,000, but we will cut you a discount, instead of selling it to you 12 bucks a CD we will give it to you for 9 buck per cd, so when she said to them "Its not going to sell that well" the label said dont worry, whatver you dont sell we will take back and credit you 12 bucks a CD credit, "we just want to ship a million and get number one", this is called buying a chart position. Basically labels want the number one debut, its all they care about.

So im not saying that artists that have been huge in the soundscan era like a Jayz, or the pop icons, dont sell, they do, but it is alot less than you may think. What soundscan also doesnt figure is the amount of CDS that get sent back to the label "pulldowns" as we call it, none of that is minused from soundscan totals or the Riaa totals. So saying the Beatles would have less sales today because of tracking is not accurate, you also have to consider they were putting out 2-3 cds a year early on, and always one a year after that, there is NO WAY any artist today could do that, consistently and still sell.
[Edited 12/1/06 14:04pm]