bsp77 said:
How did R&H not debut at #1? It seems like a lot of older albums did that. Why didn't albums debut at #1 very often - distribution problems, tallying problems?
As I wrote in my reply above, the charts back then were quite different than they are now. Back then, labels liked seeing an album rise up the charts - it gave the illusion of being a hit and gaining momentum. Plus, by taking a few weeks (or longer) to hit the top, this increased momentum was used as a marketing tool.
Also back then, stores reported to Billboard what their top sellers were. This led to bias and corruption. For example, a store owner might prefer one album over another, so he/she reports high sales for that preferred album, even if this was erroneous. Alternatively, labels would provide incentive to owners to report certain results in order to keep an album higher than it was.
Since 1991, Billboard has relied on SoundScan. In the early days, about 40% of the total sales were obtained. This data was then extrapolated (i.e., expanded to all the country). As a result of this extrapolation, there were disagreements with SoundScan and labels. However, now, SoundScan accounts for nearly all sales - as such it is the most accurate measurement of sales.
To address your question further, because of the "old" system and the advantage of watching an album rise on the charts, R&H debuted a rather lowly #14. If this happened in today's world, this would be considered a flop (especially from a big artist). But back then, this was a high debut. In today's world, given the monstrous success of JT, R&H easily would have debuted at #1 and most likely have stayed there for at least a few weeks. Of course, that's just a guess - even with the enormous popularity of U2 in 1991, AB was only able to secure one week at the top. And despite astronomical first week sales for HTDAAB, it too was only able to secure one week on top (to date).
