|
Discussion: #1 album vs #1 single, which is more important?
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 20,050
|
#1 album of course because then it's obvious people care about your music and are interested enough to spend their coins on it. That's exactly why a certain artist with 7 albums and only one of them going #1 isn't an icon.
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/12/2008
Posts: 11,333
|
Albums, ofc.
Quote:
Originally posted by RomanNavy
Singles are harder to achieve and leave a legacy. And like already posted; a single leaves behind legacy. The GP knows the songs by name, not the album.
|
Not this being posted the same year "Harlem Shake" went #1 in the Billboard Hot 100.
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/5/2011
Posts: 9,174
|
Well the single is an indication to what an album is going to sound like. They work hand in hand.
In the end, an album is a complete body of work. The singles being released represent that album.
And in this day and age, singles>>albums.
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/23/2011
Posts: 46,048
|
Singles. As already stated by everyone in here, in this current music climate, it is more difficult to achieve a #1 single than an album. For the most part, depending on the release schedule, a #1 debut with an album is more than plausible. Even Britney Jean could have gotten a #1 debut when Adam Lambert received his #1 album with Trespassing. He sold around 75k in his first week, I believe.
Quote:
Originally posted by LEGENDB
If I had to choose I'd obviously say #1 album, since my fave has so many.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/23/2011
Posts: 46,048
|
Quote:
Originally posted by alfonso12
Not this being posted the same year "Harlem Shake" went #1 in the Billboard Hot 100.
|
Harlem Shake went #1 in 2012, not 2013. And it was a phenomenon/viral video. With the new Billboard rules, streaming allows songs to peak high but without sales, the peak will not be maintained.
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/27/2011
Posts: 20,704
|
Seeing as how you can easily get a #1 single by being a feature on someone else's song when you probably wrote a fourth of your ten-second part, #1 albums since they're actually harder to get.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 7,221
|
#1 album signifies fanbase
#1 single represents casual listeners.
You decide
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/12/2008
Posts: 11,333
|
Death literally all of you guys saying singles > albums being Rihanna stans.
Quote:
Originally posted by EdgeOfAddiction
Harlem Shake went #1 in 2012, not 2013. And it was a phenomenon/viral video. With the new Billboard rules, streaming allows songs to peak high but without sales, the peak will not be maintained.
|
Girl go get a calendar Harlem Shake went #1 just 9 months ago and no one remembers that now.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 320
|
#1 singles of course
Albums are luck, depending on release date. 80k = #1 album, where as singles require a lot of things working, enough sales/radioplays/streaming. Besides don't most albums fall off quickly, while singles they usually won't shoot #1 right away and fall off, it'll hit it and it'll slowly build/die down after a while.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2009
Posts: 6,121
|
you're an idiot if you think it's harder to get number 1 single. radio, sales, streaming , all play a part in a song charting/ going number 1 . the only thing artist have to rely on for a number 1 album is people dishing out $10.00 +
and with how bad leaks been happening as of late that can be hit or miss depending on your fan base. all you have to do is save 1.29 and watch a youtube video to help get a song to number 1. .....
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/23/2011
Posts: 46,048
|
Quote:
Originally posted by alfonso12
|
I mixed the release date (2012) up with the date it hit #1 (2013).
And judging by GaGa's recent performance, she is neither an album or singles seller. Nothing, aside from Applause, managed to go top 10 (ignoring Dope due to STREAMING rules (see how that helped GaGa?)) based mostly on sales. And considering how she's had two top ten songs already, her album sales are atrocious, especially for an Q4 release with monumental promo.
I don't understand why being a Rihanna stan is any sort of negative at this point when in fact, she is the most consistent album and singles seller.
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/18/2012
Posts: 18,768
|
#1 Single for me
If you care about money, then album.
If you care about being talked about 10 years from now, single.
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/23/2011
Posts: 46,048
|
Quote:
Originally posted by stronger23
you're an idiot if you think it's harder to get number 1 single. radio, sales, streaming , all play a part in a song charting/ going number 1 . the only thing artist have to rely on for a number 1 album is people dishing out $10.00 +
and with how bad leaks been happening as of late that can be hit or miss depending on your fan base. all you have to do is save 1.29 and watch a youtube video to help get a song to number 1. .....
|
And the singles scene is far more saturated than the album scene. With so many singles fighting for the top spot with sales, radio play and streaming all playing into the final calculations, it is harder to dethrone a song then it is to dethrone an album that is purely based on sales. For major stars, #1 is much easier to achieve than a #1 single. I'll leave this out there: Tik Tok v. Bad Romance and Animal vs. The Fame Monster.
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 3,839
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RomanNavy
Singles are harder to achieve and leave a legacy. And like already posted; a single leaves behind legacy. The GP knows the songs by name, not the album.
|
Completely false.
Getting a #1 single is far easier.
With albums, you have to worry about other stars are releasing with you to help determine if you're going #1 or not.
& yes some irrelevants have obtained #1 albums with weak sales, but that's goes both ways.
With single sales, all you have to do is get lucky. No need to worry who really is releasing a song at the same time as long as your single is catchy and aimed for commercial success.
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/23/2011
Posts: 46,048
|
Quote:
Originally posted by LEGENDB
With single sales, all you have to do is get lucky. No need to worry who really is releasing a song at the same time as long as your single is catchy and aimed for commercial success.
|
If it really that easy getting a #1 single, then why do super stars like Beyonce, GaGa and Britney all failed to get a #1 with their last studio efforts while they (Bey and GaGa) managed to get a #1 album with relatively lower sales?
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/12/2012
Posts: 8,464
|
LFMFAOO single ofc!! Why do you think people still talk about Mariah's 18 #1 SINGLES...duh.
You don't even have to work as hard to get your album to #1 and it can even get there with such low sales. With singles EVERYONE is your competition. You gotta out smart everyone.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2013
Posts: 10,073
|
Albums
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 6,919
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/2/2012
Posts: 37,284
|
#1 albums of course!
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/1/2012
Posts: 25,037
|
Quote:
Originally posted by stbernarddoggy
#1 singles of course
Albums are luck, depending on release date. 80k = #1 album, where as singles require a lot of things working, enough sales/radioplays/streaming. Besides don't most albums fall off quickly, while singles they usually won't shoot #1 right away and fall off, it'll hit it and it'll slowly build/die down after a while.
|
Exactly.
Album sales are so frontloaded. They go to #1 and fall immediately. And as said before: PEOPLE REMEMBER SONGS, NOT COMPLETE ALBUMS.
|
|
|
|
|