Artist of the decade

[Hadez]

if he hadn't came out with Relapse when he did i don't think he would've got this award. not Relapse specifically, but an album in general the same time Relapse was out would suffice. he was forgotten about pretty bad and i think he came out with Relapse just in time to jog people's memories.

what do you guys think?

[Arrinef]

i think so too, good catch

[Jaz]

It was based on sales, and I'm not certain, but he was probably still ahead without Relapse.

[mrjizzbomber]

It was based on sales, and I'm not certain, but he was probably still ahead without Relapse.

Nope, I'm pretty sure Relapse helped him jump the Beatles. They would NOT have been called artist of the decade, obviously, but... I still agree with OP. Well, maybe not. It would have been questionable.

[Shit Can Happen]

The award was based on who sold the most records in the US in the past decade. Maybe Relapse had something to do with the timing but he would have gotten it anyway. Unless the addition of the Relapse sales actually gave him the push into being the #1 seller of the decade. In any case it had nothing to do with being forgotten before the album. It's solely a numbers award.

[Jaz]

He was like 4 million ahead of the Beatles.. He had it either way.

[Shit Can Happen]

Yeah, I really didn't think the Relapse sales would make that big of a difference.

[Emadyville]

He was like 4 million ahead of the Beatles.. He had it either way.

that ^

[Hadez]

oh i didn't know it was based on sales.