[superben]

Originally posted by CakeLike

Except she's not desperate for a number one hit? The majority of her singles have been produced by her own producer, if she was desperate she would stop writing her own music and get someone to produce it who is known for sending songs to number 1. How can you say she's desperate when she puts out something as unrelatable as Applause? She might like it when she gets a number one but by no means is she desperate, at least yet whilst she's still one of the biggest touring acts in the world/biggest album sellers.

Just look at her twitter please.

And I meant "desperate" as in really really wanting something and not implying she's in a literally desperate situation

[Aram]

No. The albums are more important. The majority of the singles are forgettable.

[superben]

Originally posted by Aram

No. The albums are more important. The majority of the singles are forgettable.

Just an example. How many albums by ABBA can you name without googling?

[CakeLike]

Originally posted by superben

Just look at her twitter please.

And I meant "desperate" as in really really wanting something and not implying she's in a literally desperate situation

Dude your making no sense. "Implying she's in a literally desperate situation" ?? She's selling out stadiums and her albums are always one of the biggest sellers of the year.

[RudeBoyy]

Originally posted by Aram

No. The albums are more important. The majority of the singles are forgettable.

Are you implying people remember artist by each of their full bodies of work?

[Beyy]

Originally posted by superben

Just an example. How many albums by ABBA can you name without googling?

Waterloo
ABBA
Super Trouber
The Album

now I have to search

But that's already four which is much I believe they have tons.

[Eternium]

Originally posted by Kula

Born This Way with only 2 hits sold more than Teenage Dream with 8 hits in a row. kii

No it didn't

[RudeBoyy]

Originally posted by CakeLike

Dude your making no sense. "Implying she's in a literally desperate situation" ?? She's selling out stadiums and her albums are always one of the biggest sellers of the year.

Girl who is even talking about Gaga in this thread? You are PERCHED trying to defend her from nobody...

I don't think you've made even one post on topic...

[posh]

Originally posted by RudeBoyy

6 years into her career Rihanna released 6 albums and Beyonce had 3. Of course people would pay more attention to Bey's past hits, it wasn't like she had new songs for them to listen too.

And Girl you did not just call the #1 on Radio, 4 million selling multi format hit Stay a flop. That is straight delusion. I understand where you are coming from in the last 2 paragraphs though...

That brings us back to the topic of this thread: legacy. Bey only had 3 albums over 6 years because she could. Honestly speaking, if Rihanna took a 2 year hiatus after MOTS do you think she could have came back just as big as when she left? Probably not. Beyonce's albums are always filled with gems that can last people for a while. 4 is almost three years old and it is still selling. Her legacy allows her to tag in and out of the scene without being forgotten. She can do a WW tour & then take a year (or 2) off and people will still be watching her closely. The news will still be checking on her latest haircut and the radio (mainly urban) will still be spinning her latest hits. I highly doubt the radio would have been spinning IILTYW 2 years after it was released.

Beyonce is big enough to put out an album every 3 years without consequences. She doesn't need to put out constant singles to remind people who she is. People are STILL buying 4 and the album is still being used as a sort of par for new R&B albums.

[Beyy]

Originally posted by posh

That brings us back to the topic of this thread: legacy. Bey only had 3 albums over 6 years because she could. Honestly speaking, if Rihanna took a 2 year hiatus after MOTS do you think she could have came back just as big as when she left? Probably not. Beyonce's albums are always filled with gems that can last people for a while. 4 is almost three years old and it is still selling. Her legacy allows her to tag in and out of the scene without being forgotten. She can do a WW tour & then take a year (or 2) off and people will still be watching her closely. The news will still be checking on her latest haircut and the radio (mainly urban) will still be spinning her latest hits. I highly doubt the radio would have been spinning IILTYW 2 years after it was released.

Beyonce is big enough to put out an album every 3 years without consequences. She doesn't need to put out constant singles to remind people who she is. People are STILL buying 4 and the album is still being used as a sort of par for new R&B albums.

It's the difference that's called quality vs. quantity.

[Moonage Daydream]

Originally posted by posh

Singles are obviously a big part of a legacy, every legend has at least one stand-out track that's proved to withstand the tests of time. Whitney with IWALY, Celine with MHWGO, Madonna with LAV, MJ with BJ etc. There's no denying that having those huge songs will help cement your name in history, every artists has to have that one song that automatically comes to mind when you mention them.

However, you can't build a legacy off of singles alone. Especially when most (or in the case of Rihanna, all) are forgettable and interchangeable. No artist should want to be remembered as "that girl with that song" and that's the direction some of these girls are going into. Albums are a HUGE part of creating a legacy. An album takes the listener through a journey and gives them something that will truly stick with them. It's not something they bop to at the clubs when they are drunk, it has a lot more value to it. The fact that 4 was one of the best physically selling albums of the year just goes to show that people are still thirsty for that journey. They recognize the name and love the music.

Also, you're acting like Bey & Gaga haven't had their fair share of amazing single success, which just isn't true. They have both had iconic WW smashes that have become iconic in of themselves. Rih has yet to release a single that's surpassed the impact SL and CIL had. Katy has yet (although this is probs arguable) to release a single that's surpassed Poker Face.

When an artist has created such an iconic, massive name for themselves like Beyonce, Mariah, Whitney etc. they don't NEED to worry about creating generic dance hits to gain attention. They know that their album will be able to sell because of the huge fanbase and general praise they have received throughout the years. They sell because their music is good, not because their lead single was forced down our throats.

This, although I wouldn't go as far as to say all of Rihanna's singles are forgettable but most certainly are when you see how little impact they have in the long run.

Originally posted by SebaMonster

Wow, this is so untrue. Radio stations have to pay the label everytime they play one of their singles. For a label it's like this:

Tours > Singles > Albums

Yeah, as you said the label. Not the artist. Artists make little off of singles compared to what they make from big album sales. Tours are the most profitable aspect of music for artists, so that's the only thing you got right.

[ontherocks]

and to mention airplay once again. I really don't how it works in the US, but in Germany it works like this: when radio plays songs they have to pay the GEMA (Society for musical performing and mechanical reproduction rights) and they pay that money to the authors of the songs everytime their music gets played. The label doesn't get anything. The label gets the money from sales not from airplay, exception 360 deals.

Of course, the author is not necessarily the singer if they haven't written the song

[CakeLike]

Originally posted by RudeBoyy

Girl who is even talking about Gaga in this thread? You are PERCHED trying to defend her from nobody...

I don't think you've made even one post on topic...

Why don't you go back and read the rest of my comments to see i was responding to someone who made a reply to something i wrote.

[posh]

Originally posted by RudeBoyy

I agree. Single ladies was huge and it, as a hit single, is a huge part of her legacy. Does this mean you agree with the OP

nnn
Like I said in my original post: all legends needs to have that one timeless song that people automatically connect to. I still think it's a bit early to say what Bey's is since she's still popping out contenders- but yes, strong singles work as pillars to a sturdy career, but what good are pillars if they have nothing of value to uphold?

[Haribo]

No.

[SebaMonster]

Originally posted by Moonage Daydream

Yeah, as you said the label. Not the artist. Artists make little off of singles compared to what they make from big album sales. Tours are the most profitable aspect of music for artists, so that's the only thing you got right.

But I was talking about the label and not the artist (like you said), so what's your point?

[posh]

Originally posted by Beyy

It's the difference that's called quality vs. quantity.

Yup! Quality sticks with people. After a while they start craving more and begging for it.

It's like: if I was eating ice-cream. One bowl had a small bit of the best mint oreos & creme and the other was a bunch of chocolate ice-cream. Although the chocolate ice-cream made me more full, when I go home that night I'm gonna be craving and wishing that I could have had more of that damn good mint & creme.

and the only person who can give me that mint & creme is Beyonce.
but that bitch is too busy feeding her baby and having picnics with Michelle Obama.

and I remain here starving to death.

I just want the single.......

[RudeBoyy]

Originally posted by posh

That brings us back to the topic of this thread: legacy. Bey only had 3 albums over 6 years because she could. Honestly speaking, if Rihanna took a 2 year hiatus after MOTS do you think she could have came back just as big as when she left? Probably not. Beyonce's albums are always filled with gems that can last people for a while. 4 is almost three years old and it is still selling. Her legacy allows her to tag in and out of the scene without being forgotten. She can do a WW tour & then take a year (or 2) off and people will still be watching her closely. The news will still be checking on her latest haircut and the radio (mainly urban) will still be spinning her latest hits. I highly doubt the radio would have been spinning IILTYW 2 years after it was released.

Beyonce is big enough to put out an album every 3 years without consequences. She doesn't need to put out constant singles to remind people who she is. People are STILL buying 4 and the album is still being used as a sort of par for new R&B albums.

According to the mediatraffic Top 40 and Billboard 200 4 is not still selling copies.

Rihanna could of easily taken a break after any era hers besides the first to and Rated R. Radio also spins tons of old rih hits.

[coolcristobal]

I'd rather be a Lana than a Flo Rida. That's just me, though

[Benjamin]

If you went up to a random person on the street and asked "What are the most memorable musical pieces Michael Jackson released?" Are they more likely to say:

"Oh, obviously Off The Wall, HIStory, the Thriller album, the Bad album etc" or "Oh, easily Smooth Criminal, Billy Jean, Thriller, Bad etc"?

No one is going to sit down at a party in 20 years time and play your album, to have any lasting impact you need to make people still want to dance/cry/laugh/etc along to your singles decades later.

Albums are important to overall legacy, but if you don't have the singles to advertise the albums no one's going to remember to check it out years later.