This is how you initially addressed the situation... lol
NeverSincerely wrote: The re-release didn't help as much as you think for Relapse to reach 2million in sales. It reached the 2 million mark a month or so after the release of Recovery. Which would be over 7 months after the re-release, so you can't give the re-release all the credit for Relapse passing the 2 million mark.
Then when I proved you wrong you got butthurt & started to twist it around but ironically
your statistics proved my point right & yours wrong! lol Considering the statistics you brought it ROUGHLY sold (I didn't use a calculator so I'll risk not to be exactly accurate again)
270k in total for 9 weeks after it was re-released (considering the statistics it goes further than that but I stopped at 9 weeks 'cuz of the 9 weeks prior to the re-release info) & it ROUGHLY sold
90k for the last 9 weeks before the re-release (keep in mind it would've kept decreasing too). Now is the time when you have to feel like an idiot... you don't need to twist anything anymore. You wanted facts... here we go!
The fact is... the re-release helped a great deal for the album to even reach 2 mills so don't embarrass yourself any further & just beat it! I never gave it ALL the credit but that doesn't change the fact or my point of view anyway.
NeverSincerely wrote:Francesco wrote:I can't believe how ignorant, stupid & embarrassing that was for both of you.
How do you know you lost an argument? When you resort to insults. How can you call me ignorant when you're the who seems to be incapable of finding facts to back up your argument.
You definitely are ignorant... I brought statistics for years ago on top of my head & they were on point & proved the point of the argument but you said I didn't know shit 'cuz the statistics I brought on top of my head weren't exactly accurate.

Pathetic.
Ignorant & pathetic indeed... a lotta irony in it too!
I thought you lose an argument when somebody proves you wrong or generally when you argue the obvious! lol
By the way did I insult you?
NeverSincerely wrote:Francesco wrote:So you said the re-release didn't help much for the sales
No, go back and re-read my original post.
I did & brought it back in this post too... now it/you look even worse than it/you initially did! lol
NeverSincerely wrote:The re-release didn't help AS MUCH AS YOU THINK for Relapse to reach 2million in sales. It reached the 2 million mark a month or so after the release of Recovery. Which would be over 7 months after the re-release, so you can't give the re-release ALL the credit for Relapse passing the 2 million mark.
NeverSincerely wrote:Where did I say it didn't help much? Nowhere.
I know that English isn't your first language so I won't insult your lack of reading comprehension. What my bolded statement means is that "you think it helped Relapse reach 2 million in sales more than it actually did" it does not mean that I think it didn't help.
Pathetic... embarrassing too!

Plus you have to be really outta your mind not to see the re-release helped a great deal for the album to even reach 2 mill. I'm like... SERIOUSLY? I mean you should only cut the numbers of the 10-12 weeks after the re-release & then add the numbers it was doing before that for those 10-12 weeks & you'd easily know how much the re-release helped! Wtf... this shit is obivious.
English is not my first language & I don't act like my English is even good but it's all irrelevant anyway... I addressed the situation totally the right way. Insult all you want... don't worry about it.
NeverSincerely wrote:Francesco wrote:but then brought that piece of statistics yourself & didn't feel stupid about it.

I was talking about the numbers on top of my head obviously,...
Oh I see, the statics I brought that showed you clearly didn't know what you were talking about are stupid, yet the fact that more than half the numbers brought up were incorrect is perfectly fine.
Pathetic & desperate! The stats I brought on top of my head were not exactly accurate but obviously on point... I said
LIKE &
OR SO which made it clear I couldn't be exactly accurate but obviously those stats were backing the obvious point I was making. Keep desperately twisting & turning but I don't see how that would prove your point.
NeverSincerely wrote:Francesco wrote:...it wasn't about facts but it obviously shows the re-release helped a great deal & this was the pointWhy didn't you bring the week sales before the re release genius? I dare you to bring the few weeks before the re release. I promise we'll talk again about facts when you bring that!
Because it took me a long time to find and put together the week-to-week sales for Relapse. You might understand how much time and effort it took to do that if you ever bothered finding facts to back up your faulty arguments. Also, I didn't pull the numbers up because I didn't disagree with the amount you said it was selling before the re-release, only after.
Relapse
15,707 1,566,871
Relapse
10,610 1,551,164
Relapse
9,370 1,540,554
Relapse
10,686 1,531,184
Relapse
9,071 1,520,498
Relapse
9,150 1,511,427
Relapse
9,646 1,502,277
Relapse
8,920 1,492,631
Relapse
9.536 1,483,711
This goes from the top being the week before the re-release to the bottom being October 28th. While the re-release helped it's sales for a few weeks together with his Grammy performance, like I said before, you can't give it ALL the credit for Relapse hitting the 2 million mark. If we assume that the re-release is responsible for 250k-300k of Relapse's total sales to date(which I think is a fair estimate, but if you disagree please use actual facts and figures to prove why you think otherwise)I wouldn't say it helped a great deal,
but it did help.
This is the first logical paragraph on your side from the beginning but unfortunately for you it proves my point right! Thank for the effort on bringing the stats though... I mean that!
NeverSincerely wrote:Francesco wrote:& bring Jay's & BEP's first week sales too!
Why don't YOU bring them. You are capable of doing that much right? Finding actual facts that didn't come "from the top of you head." Why would you need them anyway? You said they had lower first week sales, I never denied that. So what would finding the actual numbers prove exactly?
Pathetic... you brought them the last time when you thought they're gonna make you look good. Ok I'll go on top of my head again, don't use it against me. lol Both Jay & BEP sold somewhere in between 300-350k first week (probably not exactly accurate but who cares) while
Relapse ROUGHLY doubled that.
Relapse obviously stalled & my point was albums that started way slower caught/passed it on the way.
NeverSincerely wrote:Francesco wrote:Do you realize they were desperate enough to put someone else's record on the album when they re-released it?
Do you realize there was no Relapse anymore when they re-released it with a new title & someone else's song plus whooping 6 new ones on it.
As far as I am aware Relapse 2 was still the name at the time, but if you could bring the interview where they said otherwise I'll change my mind. Also I thought the 6 added songs were all from Relapse 2 and weren't made specifically for the purpose of being put on a re-release.
Exactly... lol They were definitely for
Relapse 2 & but were put on a
Relapse as a re-release exactly 'cuz the album needed a boost in sales. Again... there was someone else's song plus too many songs for a re-release anyway which is totally unusual esp. for Eminem!
NeverSincerely wrote:Francesco wrote: I'm gald you use statistics & shit but use your head as well. Here comes a fact that would make you sad... Refill could be easily a 7 songs EP on itself but they ridiculously made it a Relapse re-release exactly 'cuz they needed a boost in sales 'cuz Relapse was stuck on 1.7 mills & that is ridiculously low for an Em solo album. This thing alone rapes your theory... as a FACT so just beat it.
Yes it could have been an EP, like many other re-releases. You seemed to have skimmed over the part where I said that numerous successful albums get re-releases as well. Relapse wasn't "stuck" on any number. An album is considered stuck or stagnant when it falls off the billboard 200/catalouge charts completely like Relapse is now. To say Relapse is stuck at 2.3 million now would be a correct statement, to say it was stuck at 1.7 mill (I think you might have meant 1.5 mill) before the re-release would be incorrect since it was still selling and still on the billboard 200 at the time.
I skimmed over that part for sure but only 'cuz it was ridiculous! I don't care who re-releases their albums 'cuz we were/are talking about Eminem & he didn't re-release any other album but
Relapse!
I can't even believe you still arguing that the album was only re-released 'cuz of the reaction of the fans.
Encore got shit storm from fans & reviewers but it obviously sold very good so even that album wasn't re-released.
NeverSincerely wrote:Francesco wrote:Recovery sold twice the Relapse numbers & they didn't need to re-release it... talk about facts.
Recovery did not sell twice the amount of Relapse if we're going to talk about facts.
Last time I checked twice the amount of 2.3 million is 4.6 million and Recovery has sold 4.4 million. Talk about "facts" when you can actually find and use them.
What is your point with this "fact" anyway. Numerous successful albums get re-releases and numerous others don't. Re-release does not equal flop or under performance, which I said in my previous post but it seems I've had to repeat my self a lot in this thread.

Desperation is getting into you big time now! This is your lowest point so far!
Ironically you calculating/bringing statistics didn't work your way again. Cut the number
Relapse did after the re-release & put both albums against each other again!
I wonder why you keep repeating yourself too. I thought we're talking about Eminem... so you better stick to him & don't talk about re-releases in general. I brought
Recovery 'cuz it was the proof what they were looking for if we talk about EM sales.
NeverSincerely wrote:Francesco wrote:Did you even read the OP before you started with the ''facts''.
I did read the OP, while his numbers were wrong, but I did agree in my original post that commercial success is not the reason Relapse 2 was scrapped. Did you read past the first sentence of my original post before you started with your "facts"
I did & it was all BS like I originally responded! I just proved you wrong again. That's it & that's all.
By the way the dude who made this thread has good hip-hop knowledge but he just wasn't on point this time around while you only dig into statistics while your knowledge is kinda basic.
NeverSincerely wrote:Francesco wrote:I won't even comment on the sad & obsessed with me groupie who added to your post.
I won't even comment on your incessant need to put people down with insults and pull "facts" out of thin air with nothing to back them up.
Ignorant & ironic.... I never randomly insult people. As a matter a fact I probably do it the least on the forum & ironically the groupie you're talking about does it all the time & embarrasses himself most of the time. That's not important anyway 'cuz you probably didn't know what I meant.
All in all... you can twist & turn & you can embarrass yourself all you want but the major point is
Relapse was re-released mostly 'cuz they weren't happy with the commercial status of it & the critical reception just added to it! It is more than obvious actually. POINT BLANK PERIOD!
Feel free to disagree though & keep saying
Relapse was a commercial success & it was mostly re-released 'cuz of the reaction of the fans or reviewers.
