I personally don't get this position: "singles vs albums artist" and the statement the latter is "more legit". Like,
pop artists you call "album artists" don't release singles as promotion, don't perform for them, don't shoot and release many videos in a row?.. Also, if your fave managed to release some huge singles from one album and promote them, that means his/her work as an artist is not "serious"?..
How can artist be "singles-oriented"? An artist can only release singles (or not) and be successful releasing singles (or not successful). Pop artists use singles to promote their work, and that's the way it is. The difference is, ones gain big success with it, the others' success if more modest, or no real success at all.
I would say, there is no such strong connection. Most people don't buy an album because an artist "hasn't sell big singles, so he isn't singles artist, that's why his album must be good". Some albums might sell immensely well at 1st week after release because of the: 1) anticipation fed during years by statements like "it's gonna be sooo great album", "it's gonna be great debut", "ah, we're waiting for smashing comeback" and so on; 2) anticipation caused by the lead single; 3) big fan base buying an album. The latter ones might buy an album because they got used to buy albums. Maybe most members of the fan base were brought up before the era of digital sales, iTunes, online listening and illegal download. Maybe their parents bring them up in a such direction at the moment. Or maybe these fan base consists of little children (especially if we're talking about girls buying music of boy bands), who can ask their parents to buy an album - and parents do, because the artist has a secure reputation and seems to be fitting for children.
Or, at least, they have money.
Still, some people act like if artists don't sell singles well, but still have good first-week sales, that proves an artist is "big", "legit" and not conforming to masses - or even like it's an indie artist. Well, look on 1st week sales of rock bands - they rarely seem to sell more than 150K-200K, and they don't release many singles. How would you call them "singles" or "albums" artists while their 1st week sales are "low" and singles' success is "modest"?.. And if you search a bit, you will see a huge number of great pop artists, even pop legends, who were selling about 150K-200K albums at 1st week for years and even decades before they started to sell about 300K. According to this logic, does that make them "not legit"?..
I won't even mention you talking mostly about
1st week sales in US. Okay, it must be more serious than if album sells not only in 1st week, but months and years later, and not only in USA, but worldwide.
