Yes thats right, what the labels thought was a genius move, turned out to hurt them more than anything. The elimination of the single hurt way more than it helped. Sure now artists just do videos to represent their "singles" but even now the amount of time that is between singles is insane, labels,videostations,and Radio playlists sit on songs for so long, that the top 100 singles STILL has songs that were played during the summer, that is crazy.

Also the analogy that singles hurt an albums sales, just does not cut it

THE PROOF.....


The Cars 1984 album "Heartbeat City"
Album release date 3/13/84
Album Peak : #3
Total sold USA: 4 million


First Single: You might think
Release date: 3/13/84
Single Peak: #7

Second Single: Magic
Release Date: 5/15/84
Single Peak: #12

Third Single: Drive
Release Date: 7/23/84
Single Peak : #3

Fourth Single: Hello Again
Release Date: 10/15/84
Single Peak: #20

Fifth Single: Why cant i Have you
Release Date: 1/7/85
Single Peak: #33


5 singles in under 10 months, all singles sold well, all were commercially available, and they really never took time between singles and it didnt seem to hurt album sales (4 million sold), and this was the video age too, so to say artists take longer now because they make videos is bull, because all of these singles had videos. And also The Cars at the time were NOT a commercial band either, so that argument doesnt work either, lets face it the Industry today has no clue what its doing and it shows in the talent,marketing and sales.
[Edited 1/19/07 10:49am]
[Edited 1/19/07 13:19pm]

Najee said:

Exactly and thats when things really started to turn into this downward spiral of the business and the talent. The 90's to me will forever be "the soundscan era" everyone was so focused on debuting at number one, having the biggest first week that they really would do anything, and around this time some moron thought we can sell even more albums if we had no singles, then people have to buy the album, well it worked for awhile but as the talent slipped lower and lower and the CDs got longer and longer, people didnt want to buy a whole 18 track cd for 1 or 2 songs from an artist that would be gone tomorrow and hope the rest of it was good. Another thing to realize about the example i posted, those numbers that the CARS acheived for their singles were based on SALES mainly very little was based on Airplay, now everything is based on that. So not only did their album sell 4 million they probably sold another 2 million in just singles. Its really time for someone to step in at these labels and say ...Wait a Minute!
[Edited 1/21/07 16:52pm]

You guys couldn't have said it better. I know i would often buy the first
single of my favorite artist because i could not wait until the album was
released and i would go out and still buy the album when it was released.

Yeah i really wish that labels would/could realize that, but their main concern seems to be with first week sales and they figure that if they put a video out and a single to radio a couple weeks prior that will get people to buy an album, well its not working, mainly since there really are no more video stations PLAYING VIDEOS and not many people are tuning into the radio because its the same 10 songs all day, so i think its time to get "a little old school" and see if that does something.

Also, the internet did not exist in 1984 when The Cars had singles out.

hope i'm following you correctly here.

i see your point, but don't you think the biggest part of not releasing singles is due to people downloading, mp3s, etc.? and also the fact that most people aren't going to spend $5 on a single song anymore? so i see what you're saying but i also see why they're choosing not to spend money on something that's no longer beneficial to them..financially .

Najee said:

hey Najee. no one's arguing that point. of course there needs to be single releases. but i'm understanding the topic as actual physical compact disc releases. not just what track will be put out to radio.

Well singles would not need to cost 5 dollars, before singles really went out they were averaging in the 1.99 for two songs, i think labels should shut down the whole 99 cent single to iTunes because that has backfired big time. I think singles should be brought back also for the mixes and remixes and bsides, this is such a huge thing overseas and the US for some reason has totally closed off this avenue. Case in point, the PussyCat Dolls have released 6 "commercial" singles overseas, and those six singles have combined to sell 15 million copies, while the album has sold 6million worldwide too. To date they have only released 1 "physical" single here which sold about a million and the album has sold about 2 million. So the single as whole has its market value, to totally eliminate it wasnt smart, it may have worked for a little bit but not any more. Also the point i made about The Cars was more or less about HOW to market an album and how those singles/videos helped sell it, and it took such a short period of time. They had 5 singles chart in about 9 months, now youre lucky if you can get 2-3 singles period out of an artist.
[Edited 1/21/07 18:23pm]

Like, I want to know how this would have affected the album sales of Emancipation of Mimi vs. 20 Y.O.

(I sure as hell never saw a Mariah CD single @ the sto')

CinisterCee said:

The thing is that Mariah had "physical" singles released overseas, with remixes and all that and her album actually sold even better in those markets. For Janet who knows, maybe it could have, but her situation is different mainly because of her super bowl incident and she is a Jackson.

lastdecember said:

The 80s and even before were great deacades for a lot of singles off albums in a very little time. If it's up to the record company they will milk an album for a year with 2 maybe 4 singles. If an album has like 5 singles now of days, it's 2 years old! If they had their way, lazy ass record labels would release a single a year!

Najee said:

Singles are a huge market overseas still to this day and its really always been that way, tons of remixes,bsides,unreleased tracks etc..it just seems to be marketed very well over there and always has. I just think the USA gave up on it, but it really should have kept it going especially for artists that have loyal fan bases, like Mariah,janet,Madonna etc.....

I am a huge fan of singles, but I do see the online market becoming the standard from now on. Maybe if singles were still released for download as mini-eps, complete with printable art, it could be almost as good as the old days. I like the ep that was available for download with Liz Phair's 2003 self-titled album. I think more artists should try to maximize their potential sales by embracing the internet, and offering the extra tracks and art that really make a single something worthwhile in its own right.

John Mayer released a Best Buy exclusive single for Waiting On The World To Change (1.99), complete with a remix and a b-side, plus a coupon for 2 bucks off the full length album (Continuum) when it came out, so it was virtually free! Awesome!
[Edited 1/21/07 19:22pm]

VinnyM27 said:

Thats it exactly, is pure LAZINESS, labels want the quick payday now, they dont wanna work an artist, look how quick Emi gave up on Van Hunt, instead of pushing this guy and getting him tv/radio time, they did nothing at all.

lastdecember said:

Really makes you miss the 80s,huh? Back then,artists would release singles very quickly....only a few months apart.As a fan,you always had a new song and video to look forward to.I still remember the fun and excitement of watching Michael Jackson release one single after another in 1982/83/84...all from the same album! It's a shame that those days are over.

I haven't seen no damn singles in the stores for years now anyway so I don't think that's the reason. I wish I could say sales are down because people have gotten hip that today's music is a bunch of bullshit. However, that's not the case either. The sales are down because people are downloading or copying their friends' CDs. Whatever the case, it's less money in these bullshit artist's pockets and their record labels also so I'm all for it.

I hope it gets to the point that these record labels actually lose money by signing and releasing these bullshit artists. If music can ever get from underneath the control of the record labels and radio stations that manipulate everything, maybe a long needed style change will finally come.

lastdecember said:

I've been bytching about the lack of CD Singles since 1998. To me, THIS is the main reason why P2P was booming long before Steve Jobs was thinking about iTunes or a iPod.

Instead of the RIAA wasting their time & money on suing children/teens, they need to bring back the CD single releases.

I think you are 100% correct. The elimination of singles was a HUGE mistake by the record labels. They are basically advertisements for the album. In a world driven by advertising, why limit the # of singles? Fans love them. Put them out on iTunes with b-sides and bonus tracks, and make people buy the entire single (for, say, $3.99 or $4.99) to get the bonus material. Do videos for them.

It's a no-brainer IMHO.

NorthernLad said:

Exactly, i can remember all through the 80's buying singles of artists even if i had the damn album already just for a different mix, or a bside or a new cover or something. What i think the main problem is that there really isnt a LOYALITY with people anymore, even if you like an artist that is just coming out, with the way things are the label will drop them and they are gone, so people dont get into artists like that anymore. I dont buy into the whole music is expensive, because up until 1988 i didnt have a job yet so i was saving my allowance to get things, but where as Music would have been Number one to us, to todays kid its probably their cell phone or something like that, which kills me that LABELS TARGET KIDS! WHY???? to sell ringtones? do you what a label makes on Ringtones, almost nothing, so they can bring that Downloading Ringtones is up, but their not making $$ off it. Someone posted a chart from 1987 last week, and if you looked at it you saw that out of the Top 40 artists all but one was under 21, and that was Samantha Fox, most of them were between 25-30 and many were 35+. Whether its video,radio,labels, they all think that targeting youth promoting youth works well apparently its not.

vainandy said:

I have2 agree with Andy.
A simple case of downloading and copying the music.
And the industry is certainly at an all time low. -quality of product wise-
[Edited 1/23/07 17:33pm]

thedribbler said:

I do agree but it is more than the Downloading thing. Things like that can be combatted. First you target LOYAL music fans not KIDS, kids are not loyal and the numbers show it. Utilize more established artists this way, the market is there, singles for these artists would be smart. How many Prince fans would buy a Prince single that had a B side? ALOT and we know that, Here in NYC there is an import shop called Record Runner that basically sells established artists (madonna,janet,depeche,duran etc) basically artists that have worldwide followings, and though music sales may be down, this store has existed through the rough times. I remember talking to the owner and that had just gotten some Madonna Import single, and he told me they sold 400 in a day! And this store is not big, u can barely fit 15 people in it at once, and these singles cost anywhere from5-11 dollars depending on the country released from, so singles not being Popular or a good market isnt true, it was dumb for labels to entirely cut this off.

NorthernLad said:

If I'm a 19-year-old college kid who's going to class and paying for groceries and beer with work-study money then I'm'a get the latest 50 Cent or Killers track off of Adam or Josh or Brian's PC down the hall and burn it on a Maxell CD-R.

I'd rather use that cash for a case of Coronas when me and my buds watch the Colbert Report.

Mara said:

I agree w/ you, but I do think the death of the single contributed to the music industry's decline. It certainly wasn't the only factor

I was in the music biz in the 90's, I know why we stopped releasing singles- because there just too much product and not enough good albums. There was a ton of 1 hit wonders, remember "I Get Knocked Down" by chumbawumba? or "I just wanna Fly" by Sugar Ray? Sugar Ray had hit albums later but that cd, had 1 song and the rest was more punk. Labels were making $15 bucks for the new CD technology and didnt want to lose money on singles. The bands just sucked for the most part.

DMSR said:

There are one-hit wonders in every era. The problem is that the record companies wanted to make people buy an album full of crap to get one good song. The strategy appears to have backfired.

I hate having to spend extra money importing CD singles just to get B-sides from my favorite artists.

BTW, those songs were "Tubthumping" and "Fly."