randomness

[Anamodiel]

So Billboard decided to change their policy on proprietary albums.

Britney Spears sold 290,000 copies of her CD. The Eagles sold around 700,000 copies. However, it has always been Billboard's policy that they don't place proprietary albums on the chart. Suddenly, just today, they decided to change their policy.

Britney Spears is now number two, breaking her streak of consecutive number 1 albums (this would have been her 5th). Billboard had been saying ALL WEEK that she was going to be number 1 until they decided to pull this shit on her and allow proprietary CD sales to count.

What bullshit. Why, this week, of all weeks, did they decide to pull this? I am so pissed off right now. And to think, I thought that this day couldn't be bad. Ugh...

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003668840

It's one thing to inform the industry, with adequate time beforehand, of a change to the biggest album chart in the United States. However, it is quite another to proceed with such a large change in policy AFTER the album sales have already been counted. This seems preconceived, completely biased, and utterly unfair. If you have an active policy and there record companies basing release dates CONTINGENT ON THE RULES CURRENTLY IN-FORCE, how can you then change those rules AFTER said albums have ALREADY been released? It makes absolutely no sense and it makes a mockery of the system, the rules, and the charts.

UGHHH.

[Lithium]

Of course the Eagles won. They are awesome. (and my favorite band)

How can you even argue that the bitch should have #1 when she sold less than half as many as the Eagles. They saw the fuck up in that logic and revised it, rightly so. I don't understand why their policy would not include 'certain albums' in the first place... you want to argue faults with billboard...

I'm damn proud to have partaken in the defeat of the bitch.

[Ash]

So Billboard decided to change their policy on proprietary albums.

Britney Spears sold 290,000 copies of her CD. The Eagles sold around 700,000 copies. However, it has always been Billboard's policy that they don't place proprietary albums on the chart. Suddenly, just today, they decided to change their policy.

Britney Spears is now number two, breaking her streak of consecutive number 1 albums (this would have been her 5th). Billboard had been saying ALL WEEK that she was going to be number 1 until they decided to pull this shit on her and allow proprietary CD sales to count.

What bullshit. Why, this week, of all weeks, did they decide to pull this? I am so pissed off right now. And to think, I thought that this day couldn't be bad. Ugh...

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003668840

It's one thing to inform the industry, with adequate time beforehand, of a change to the biggest album chart in the United States. However, it is quite another to proceed with such a large change in policy AFTER the album sales have already been counted. This seems preconceived, completely biased, and utterly unfair. If you have an active policy and there record companies basing release dates CONTINGENT ON THE RULES CURRENTLY IN-FORCE, how can you then change those rules AFTER said albums have ALREADY been released? It makes absolutely no sense and it makes a mockery of the system, the rules, and the charts.

UGHHH.

Ana...are you sure this isn't you?

Seriously.

[Anonymous]

Duck and cover!  Duck and cover!

[Subb]

For all you HP fans:


Expecto Patronum means 'I wawait a Protector' in latin O.o

is WAWAIT english translation?

I meant 'I await a Protector'.

[Manic Velocity]

I went into my local Hard Rock Cafe' the other night and saw a picture of Britney Spears hanging on the same wall as pictures of Jim Morrison and Eric Clapton.  I looked around the restaurant, and I was the only person who had a problem with this.

[Subb]

*tears the picture of britney down*


wtf?! Come on! WITH ERIC CLAPTON!






Wait until Nocry sees that!

[Tecknik]

I went into my local Hard Rock Cafe' the other night and saw a picture of Britney Spears hanging on the same wall as pictures of Jim Morrison and Eric Clapton.  I looked around the restaurant, and I was the only person who had a problem with this.

ROFL.

[Subb]

So Billboard decided to change their policy on proprietary albums.

Britney Spears sold 290,000 copies of her CD. The Eagles sold around 700,000 copies. However, it has always been Billboard's policy that they don't place proprietary albums on the chart. Suddenly, just today, they decided to change their policy.

Britney Spears is now number two, breaking her streak of consecutive number 1 albums (this would have been her 5th). Billboard had been saying ALL WEEK that she was going to be number 1 until they decided to pull this shit on her and allow proprietary CD sales to count.

What bullshit. Why, this week, of all weeks, did they decide to pull this? I am so pissed off right now. And to think, I thought that this day couldn't be bad. Ugh...

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003668840

It's one thing to inform the industry, with adequate time beforehand, of a change to the biggest album chart in the United States. However, it is quite another to proceed with such a large change in policy AFTER the album sales have already been counted. This seems preconceived, completely biased, and utterly unfair. If you have an active policy and there record companies basing release dates CONTINGENT ON THE RULES CURRENTLY IN-FORCE, how can you then change those rules AFTER said albums have ALREADY been released? It makes absolutely no sense and it makes a mockery of the system, the rules, and the charts.

UGHHH.

Honestly Ana, I don't think she deserves to be number 1. I've heard the Album; I got to admit it isn't as bad as I thought it was gonna be but it's not even Average by my books. I just think she should've sorted her life out before doing anything music wise.

[Phienyx]

BS (Britney Spears) has no business being in the same catagory as people with real talent.  What little talent she has does not compare to the likes of the Eagles and Eric Clapton.

As far as the Charts go, all albums should be included if you want to be fair, so she should be happy she even made #2.

....besides, what difference do the charts make anyways in the big picture?  If you like the music of an artist, that's all that should matter (bad or good).  There are artists out there that have much better music than anything on the charts, but don't get the recognition.  Who cares?

All the charts measure is how many people bought the album, not how good it is.  Now in the long run, that picture may (or may not) paint a more accurate picture of how good the album is by how many people continue to purchase the album, but the first couple of weeks only reflects the hype that was produced.  

I've purchased many a album because of the hype or even because I like the artist, but the album itself ended up being crap and i regretted buying it.  But you'd better believed my purchase counted as "one" toward their position on "the charts" whether it was deserved or not.  

Now if an artist remains high on the charts long after "the hype" has died down, that may be saying something.

And as a few above stated.... I did check out the album myself and it is indeed better than I expected.  However it should not be in the running for even the top 20.  There's already too much boxed, crackerjack pop music out there posing as quality music.

[Anamodiel]

Because Pheinyx's was the only one with a thought out explanation, I'm only going to bother to respond to him.

BS (Britney Spears) has no business being in the same category as people with real talent.  What little talent she has does not compare to the likes of the Eagles and Eric Clapton.

You've got a point there. I feel better that she lost to the legends like the Eagles rather than some other bum pop singer.

As far as the Charts go, all albums should be included if you want to be fair, so she should be happy she even made #2.

I totally agree with you. However, Billboard should not suddenly change its rules after the numbers have been counted. If they were going to change their rules, they should have pronounced that the 29th of October, the day before this week's album's were released.

By your logic, also, Garth Brook's 2005 box set The Limited Series should have also been number one. His album, also sold exclusively through Walmart, sold 500,000 copies its first week. He would have been number one, but Billboard did not change its rule then after they counted the numbers. Why change the rule now, without any prior notice?

....besides, what difference do the charts make anyways in the big picture?  If you like the music of an artist, that's all that should matter (bad or good).  There are artists out there that have much better music than anything on the charts, but don't get the recognition.  Who cares?

Britney Spears had a record running, a big record. Britney Spears was the only female in music history to have her first four studio albums debut at number one in a row. This would have been her 5th. Now, every single media outlet is attacking her because she did not make number 1. I drove the entire way to school listening to radio stations mock Britney for not getting number 1. No one is happy she made number 2, but any other artist would not get the severe backlash that Britney is. Everyone is now proclaiming her imminent failure as a pop artist for debuting at 2. That is the real reason why I am mad about this.

All the charts measure is how many people bought the album, not how good it is.  Now in the long run, that picture may (or may not) paint a more accurate picture of how good the album is by how many people continue to purchase the album, but the first couple of weeks only reflects the hype that was produced.

I agree. I only get frustrated that Billboard told us the entire week that Britney would be number 1 (with no mention at all of anything dealing with the Eagles), and then suddenly changing their minds on Tuesday night, hours before they released the charts.

(There is nothing to say against the last three paragraphs because it is more of a matter of opinion and has already been touched on in other parts of my post)

[Subb]

That Chris Crocker guy needs a punch, even if he is acting.

[Lithium]

I went into my local Hard Rock Cafe' the other night and saw a picture of Britney Spears hanging on the same wall as pictures of Jim Morrison and Eric Clapton.  I looked around the restaurant, and I was the only person who had a problem with this.

something wrong with that

[NoCry]

i too have a problem with that (although must confess to owning all of the previous Britney Spears Albums); Clapton is a legend, spears is a wannabe who realises that the only way to maintain fame is drive around around in circles and ask the paparazzi to do randome shite for her.

[NoCry]

BTW yotogi; i think you are rather amusing, in fact, bally funny!