Pink Poogle Toy Forum

I think it's a good thing if they do release alot of singles because that shows the people how many good songs are on their album and why you should buy it. I remeber seeing an interview of Gwen Stefani saying that on her album all of the songs can be a single because they are all good. So by making 6 singles from her 1st album tells the viewers that the other songs on her album will be good as well.

I kind of disagree with that. I'm one of those people that's really put off to an album if I hear half of the songs on the radio. I want one or two singles, max. To me, the more songs that are released from an album just shows me that the album is mediocre at best and the person who made it is so desperate to sell albums that they have to resort to releasing too many singles. [/rant about modern radio and music]

One or two singles? I agree on the "over exposing" your album but you cannot expect an album with possibly 12 tracks (On average) to release two singles let alone one.

The more songs that are released from an album show that the album is actually good. Only the best songs are used from the album to get the album to sell and in the case of Gwen Stefani, perhaps not all the singles released are her best songs but they aren't her worse.

In your case, why not let the artist release any singles at all? Just do a promotional ad, I'm sure the CD will sell. [/sarcasm]

Basically, you need to promote your album and if it doesn't sell well, the artist or band will get dropped from their label unless they have a really good contract but even then, artists get dropped.

I dont think its bad, so much as just weird. Im not used to 7 singles...it confuses me. I end up thinking that an artist released more albums than they actually did. Im clueless with mainstream music, I guess. Its hard to keep track.

10 years ago, artists like Savage Garden, Jewel, and The Presidents of the United States of America would only release about 3 singles from an album, yet were still wildly popular. Even the Backstreet Boys' Millennium in 2000 only stuck to about 4-5 singles, with just 3 having a lot of exposure.

I've bolded some key numbers here. Yes, 10 years ago, music was good. People didn't need to release more than 3 singles to sell an album because the music was that good. In the past several years though, music has gone downhill really fast. People need to release more singles because their music isn't as good. People need to hear more than half an album to even consider buying it these days. I am still set in my old ways. If I hear only one song off of an album, but it's an amazing song, I'll buy the album...and 99% of the time, the album was definitely worth buying. If I hear quite a few songs though (like 5) and buy the album, I'm pretty disappointed 99% of the time. And on a side note, if people want to argue about the quality of music with me, you try explaning to kids why 9 out 10 songs they choose to sing in a talent show are unacceptable. Then you'll see just how bad mainstream music today really is.

Edit: I just wanted to add something else I thought of. Another reason I won't buy an album that releases a lot of singles is because I can just turn on the radio and within probably an hour, hear each single off the album. Kind of pointless for me to spend money on the album when I can hear almost all of it on the radio.

That's because these artists are working against music downloading. If an artist puts out one single, someone can just download it. If they put four singles, the downloader may actually be inclined to buy the album. They may end up downloading the whole album but at least the artist would be able to sell more CD's to fans because they're showing their album contains a lot of great songs.

Mayanspypilot is right, mainstream music is incredibly bad these days, seriously it's like sound pollution. It's full of wannabe's and people without their own style. They all want to be "the next big thing" and only 30% end up being remotely succesful. Which is why we, as an audience, get bombarded with singles.

Now don't get me wrong. I think it's great that hard working artists put out single after single, but others who are fabricated, and sorry to any of her fans, like Ashlee Simspon, who have to be involved in scandals just to sell a cd that's mediocre at best need to be limited. I mean sooner or later they have to realize that their cd isn't that good.

Take for example Mariah Carey's CD, I loved it, it's one of her best since Music Box, it's been out since last year and has had 6 singles. I think it's good for old artists who've been around longer to still have the success they've had before.

I don't even know if there's a point to all that, but I guess what I'm saying is that it's good for good artists to put out singles, because they deserve to. But others who are fabricated, IMHO, don't need to be releasing anymore music.

I hope that made sense xD

Ew, I hated her new CD. Only a few good songs on there; I was severely disappointed.

I loved her CD. It is one of my favourites but I only like about 8 songs on the CD but I think that it was worth it.

I'm with Kidwaiy I loved all of her CD except 'To the Floor' and 'One and Only Part One' (The slow one)

Mariah Carey? lol she can sing... excellent performance at the Grammy's 2006, not with We Belong Together but with Fly Like a Bird ... now I haven't heard the whole album (just the 5-6 singles that have been released) but they are pretty good (except for Get Your Number; BLEH) so... yeah. Fly Like a Bird~~

Just so people don't think we're off task, that's her next single! !!

I think it's alright as long as each song has a diverse flavor. You know what I mean - some artists produce songs that sound basically the same, but with different lyrics and a few different variations on the music.

For example, although I'm biased, Kelly Clarkson is great. All of her singles released so far have been totally varied and unique.

I hope to god her next single is 'Go' I am obsessed with that song, I'm always singing it!!!

I'm pretty sure it's her next single.