Smash singles give artists an identity and something to be remembered for. Lemonade for example, while succesful now has no hits and in 10 years let's face it, the gp will not remember it and will remember beyonce for hits like Singles ladies and Crazy in love

On ATRL, absolutely.

I agree ... In say 10 years when people pick up albums they usually see what songs are on the back to see if they remember them .. with I .. Am sasha people will spot a few songs which could lead to people buying the album whilst Lemonade has no songs to offer... UNLESS.. if does eventually get a hit .. I mean even Bey's self titled had drunk in love .. but anyways



Yes I think single success is underrated

No, it's overrated.

It brings minimal revenue and #1 singles are consumed, forgotten and replaced at a very fast pace these days.

Making cultural impact and having smash albums is much more important.

Yes.

This forum is deluded enough to think people in general know musicians for their albums. Outside music fans, there aren't many who can name a Michael Jackson or a Madonna album, let alone other artists. People remember them for their hit songs.

Single success is great, but you know you're legendary when your album can be spoken in the same sentence as Thriller, Sgt. Pepper, Pet Sounds, Rubber Soul, Straight Out of Compton, etc.

Yes

I'm going to say no.
I think albums are important. It proves people are interested in the artist, in her music, other than just a few singles.
Artists that are only successful with singles will never be considered as legends, icons and won't have a real impact. People take a few singles from them, they enjoy it, use them to do party and have fun but that's it. Albums are much more importants in my opinion. But artists that only sell albums and can't get a hit is also a bad thing lol because their music will be forgotten in a few years, without a doubt.

It is on atrl. But some albums are remembered, and legendary albums contribute to the artist's legacy more than successful singles (Michael Jackson, the Beatles and Mariah Carey are great examples).

I dont even know what these are

You clearly opened this thread just to spite Beyoncé. You should work on being a little less transparent it's not cute.


Anyway to answer your question: Beyoncé will be remembered for her performing talent, vocals and albums. She has remembered hits from the past, they're not so important now as Beyoncé has solidified her place in the industry and music history. It doesn't matter if she doesn't have massive hits in the future, everyone will remember Beyoncé.

No, it gets the artists radio plays and people bop on their stuff.. It don't get further than that since these people figures on Tour or albums are tragic. So I think it's rated as it should. Single success without album success and Tour success is meaningless imo.
LMFAO had one of the biggest hit with a lot of cultural impact at the time but where are them now?
I see you like Kesha and the same can be said about her, plenty hits, generic WW smash with Pitbull but let's not even check for albums or tour score..
There is a reason Single artists aren't respected as much as the other artists in the industry.

Taylor has hits, no #1 for 10 weeks but her albums and tour figures show you everything you need to know about her and the impact she has on GP and fanns.

As for Beyoncé, I think she got bored, bored with the way things were done, she did it since 2003 had the hits but didn't feel like doing it anymore and wanted to go her own path. I personally think she disliked her old ways and in order for her to keep interest in her work she changed everything up. It can be hard to accept for promo obsessed stans..

More like overrated imo.

Very!!

An artist is remembered for his hits not his albums.

You're delusional. GP doesn't know any of the artists albums.
Where are Tina Turner, MJ or Madonna without their hits?
Hit singles are clearly way more important because that's what artists are known for at the end of the day and that gives them identity.

Yes, hits matter. But it's bad when that's the only thing an artist has (like say Rihanna with Work when Anti bombed)

Katy does it right. I mean she's not the best album seller but she has managed to sell over 1M copies with every album while spawning some major selling singles from said albums.

The GP isn't brain dead; they listen to albums. Obviously hits will be more remembered in the long run because they are stand alone tracks instead of complete bodies of work.

How is a double platinum album a bomb though?


To answer the question, definitely. The first thing that comes to people's mind in relation to music are songs and not albums.

Didn't the album sell 460 in its first week? And wasn't it certified platinum via illegal downloads and free TIDAL trials? Like, that's hardly an achievement.

And to whom? Gay pop music lovers? Speak for yourself