After listening completely through some albums (Halcyon Days, Bright Lights, Some Nights, Aim and Ignite, Night Visions), I realized that many of the best songs from the albums were never released as singles. Is it just a matter of personal preference or is it a widespread thing?
These days, releasing 10 singles is more profitable than releasing an album. The attention span of the public is so short that if you take two years to release an album, everyone's forgotten about you. A lot of older albums contained great songs in them, because on hardware, albums were actually a thing people bought. Like, anything from Graceland is pretty great.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
These days, releasing 10 singles is more profitable than releasing an album. The attention span of the public is so short that if you take two years to release an album, everyone's forgotten about you. A lot of older albums contained great songs in them, because on hardware, albums were actually a thing people bought. Like, anything from Graceland is pretty great.
It's not a new vs old thing... for a long time now it has been standard in the industry to put a ton of filler on main albums, because you can entice people to buy them with just a single or two.
Yes it is a very widespread thing to have great songs not released as singles. The best thing to make a single is just a catchy song that'll get people hooked and talking and interested in the album, it doesn't have to be good in other ways. I pretty much only listen to full albums (and EPs and demos) because I just enjoy music a lot more that way, and a lot of my library is albums that I think are very consistent in quality.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Virtue, Jacques, is an excellent thing. Both good people and wicked people speak highly of it..."
These days, releasing 10 singles is more profitable than releasing an album. The attention span of the public is so short that if you take two years to release an album, everyone's forgotten about you. A lot of older albums contained great songs in them, because on hardware, albums were actually a thing people bought. Like, anything from Graceland is pretty great.
Albums weren't even really a thing until the 60s, prior to that they were only collections of singles, so it's only been the fairly recent in the history of popular music that the medium even existed. Now, with most music being purchased digitally, the album is pretty much obsolete as a medium. Music is still released in 40 to 80 minute chunks largely because it's an easily digestible length and lends itself well to telling a story or conveying a theme.
After listening completely through some albums (Halcyon Days, Bright Lights, Some Nights, Aim and Ignite, Night Visions), I realized that many of the best songs from the albums were never released as singles. Is it just a matter of personal preference or is it a widespread thing?
The vast majority of artists don't even release singles. If you aren't expecting radio airplay, it simply isn't profitable. As far as pop music goes, singles are often explicitly planned to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Rock bands on major labels have/want a little more creative control, but there's still pressure on them to write hook-filled, radio-friendly numbers. Here's a quote from Deftone's Chino Moreno:
"'Back to School' was a mistake. A calculated song, that had been built up with only one aim in mind: It should be a single. ... 'Back to School' was released because I was an idiot. I wanted to prove something [to the record company]. Months later, after White Pony was released, they wanted us to do a new version of 'Pink Maggit.' They said we lost our heaviness, and there were no more singles on the album. First, I wanted to stick this idea up my ass, but then I thought: 'I'm gonna show those ****ers how easy it is to create a hit-single.' And so I rapped a hip hop part on that song, we shortened it and half an hour later, the hit-single was ready to roll on."
So if you prefer the non-single songs on an album, it probably just means you like songs with more content and aren't pushed to sell the album.
These days, releasing 10 singles is more profitable than releasing an album. The attention span of the public is so short that if you take two years to release an album, everyone's forgotten about you. A lot of older albums contained great songs in them, because on hardware, albums were actually a thing people bought. Like, anything from Graceland is pretty great.
It's not a new vs old thing... for a long time now it has been standard in the industry to put a ton of filler on main albums, because you can entice people to buy them with just a single or two.
Exactly. And these days, people have the ability to choose which tracks they want anyway, so they choose not to pay for the filler. Therefore it's not profitable to release that filler anymore.
Albums weren't even really a thing until the 60s, prior to that they were only collections of singles, so it's only been the fairly recent in the history of popular music that the medium even existed.
Non-concept albums are still albums. Especially in the past, where multiple tracks of the album were often recorded in the same studio with much of the same musicians, so they'd end up sonically similar without having a strong overarching theme.
Music is still released in 40 to 80 minute chunks largely because it's an easily digestible length and lends itself well to telling a story or conveying a theme.
This is hardly true. There are very few acts that even try to tell stories that have gotten anywhere near the mainstream in past years. Acts such as The Protomen still exist, but are delegated to much of a sidestream audience.
The vast majority of artists don't even release singles. If you aren't expecting radio airplay, it simply isn't profitable. As far as pop music goes, singles are often explicitly planned to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Rock bands on major labels have/want a little more creative control, but there's still pressure on them to write hook-filled, radio-friendly numbers.
Vast majority of artists, by that token, never release anything. Or then they do so on Bandcamp, get seventeen downloads and are never heard of again. While they make up a significant part of the music being made, they make up for a negligible part of the music being consumed. They are not indicative of the viability of release formats in a commercial environment. And even then, I'm not sure where you get your numbers, considering there are thousands of EDM-producers on the internet that clearly release singles.
I'd assume you primarily listen to metal/rock music?
So if you prefer the non-single songs on an album, it probably just means you like songs with more content and aren't pushed to sell the album.
Edgy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Exactly. And these days, people have the ability to choose which tracks they want anyway, so they choose not to pay for the filler. Therefore it's not profitable to release that filler anymore.
But it is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Virtue, Jacques, is an excellent thing. Both good people and wicked people speak highly of it..."
Albums weren't even really a thing until the 60s, prior to that they were only collections of singles, so it's only been the fairly recent in the history of popular music that the medium even existed.
Non-concept albums are still albums. Especially in the past, where multiple tracks of the album were often recorded in the same studio with much of the same musicians, so they'd end up sonically similar without having a strong overarching theme.
I wasn't referring to concept albums, I was referring to albums period. LPs didn't exist until 1948 and they were initially used as compilations. Artists didn't generally take advantage of the format for more than that until the 60s when you got things like Pet Sounds.
I'm sure you could find some actual albums in the 50s you could dig up, but my point is that a half decade of albums is still a very short amount of time in the overall history of popular music.
Music is still released in 40 to 80 minute chunks largely because it's an easily digestible length and lends itself well to telling a story or conveying a theme.
This is hardly true. There are very few acts that even try to tell stories that have gotten anywhere near the mainstream in past years. Acts such as The Protomen still exist, but are delegated to much of a sidestream audience.
There are still unifying concepts in pop albums even if they aren't concept albums. Things like Daft Punk's RAM have sonic themes that tie them together and make them more than collections of songs. There are also pop artists like Janelle Monae who have done exactly the same thing as The Protomen.
The vast majority of artists don't even release singles. If you aren't expecting radio airplay, it simply isn't profitable. As far as pop music goes, singles are often explicitly planned to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Rock bands on major labels have/want a little more creative control, but there's still pressure on them to write hook-filled, radio-friendly numbers.
Vast majority of artists, by that token, never release anything. Or then they do so on Bandcamp, get seventeen downloads and are never heard of again. While they make up a significant part of the music being made, they make up for a negligible part of the music being consumed. They are not indicative of the viability of release formats in a commercial environment. And even then, I'm not sure where you get your numbers, considering there are thousands of EDM-producers on the internet that clearly release singles.
For the purposes of this thread, I was considering artists who release albums through labels or if they self-release, they have a significant enough distribution that it doesn't require any effort to get their albums. I don't consider Bandcamp artists or Youtube artists unless they've used it as a springboard, like Justin Bieber.
So I'm looking at music being consumed.
I'll make an addendum to my earlier statement, though. Most artists don't release singles to their albums. Most artists still don't release singles period, but some underground and independent artists, like random EDM producers, drop non-album singles. They also drop EPs and splits, but if you add up all non-album releases, it's still just a drop in the bucket compared to album releases.
So if you prefer the non-single songs on an album, it probably just means you like songs with more content and aren't pushed to sell the album.
Edgy.
Buzzword.
I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. Some artists release non-album singles, but that doesn't signify anything, for the purposes of radio play, singles are designed to be ear worms. Major labels want things with catchy hooks to get people to buy the albums they invested in. This is pretty obviously common knowledge.
[quote from="Amadi" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/entertainment/music/549774-amazing-songs-that-werent-released-as-singles?comment=2"]Yes it is a very widespread thing to have great songs not released as singles. The best thing to make a single is just a catchy song that'll get people hooked and talking and interested in the album, it doesn't have to be good in other ways. I pretty much only listen to full albums (and EPs and demos) because I just enjoy music a lot more that way, and a lot of my library is albums that I think are very consistent in quality.
Definitely agree with this. There are many albums out there where the non-singles are just as good (or at times even better) than the singles. Like Feathas says, singles are often chosen simply for being the most "catchy" or in other words accessible song - i.e the one that the largest amount of listeners are likely to enjoy. I too enjoy listening to full albums a lot more than I do listening to the radio and only hearing hit singles.
I wasn't referring to concept albums, I was referring to albums period. LPs didn't exist until 1948 and they were initially used as compilations. Artists didn't generally take advantage of the format for more than that until the 60s when you got things like Pet Sounds.
But compilation albums are albums as well. Literally any recording with 25 minutes or four tracks in it counts as an album. In fact, the origin of the word comes from albums of 78rpm discs you'd need to play in order to have a full.. "Album". Each could only hold so much, so they were sold in groups.
I'm sure you could find some actual albums in the 50s you could dig up, but my point is that a half decade of albums is still a very short amount of time in the overall history of popular music.
I could bring up even concept albums, from Frank Sinatra. The earliest album by him (The Voice of Frank Sinatra) comes from 1946. That isn't even the earliest: By around 20's to 40's Jazz was the de facto popular music, and it wouldn't be hard to dig up numerous albums from the 40's in that genre (Count Basie, anyone?). For Big Band, Glen Miller was there. Apart from that, it'd be hard to refuse the influence of Woody Guthrie or Judy Garland. I should be able to dig up some stuff from the 30's, even.
Your point is also relatively moot, considering that a widespread "popular music", or indeed "popular culture" isn't that old of a thing. The term itself can be seen originating from the late 1800's, but is widely seen to encompass mostly early 20th century to the current day. In addition, it's pretty much irrelevant, since we're talking about the history of recorded popular music.
There are still unifying concepts in pop albums even if they aren't concept albums. Things like Daft Punk's RAM have sonic themes that tie them together and make them more than collections of songs. There are also pop artists like Janelle Monae who have done exactly the same thing as The Protomen.
For the purposes of this thread, I was considering artists who release albums through labels or if they self-release, they have a significant enough distribution that it doesn't require any effort to get their albums. I don't consider Bandcamp artists or Youtube artists unless they've used it as a springboard, like Justin Bieber.
So I'm looking at music being consumed.
Let me quote some numbers from the UK:
Quote from Musicweek on 2013 »
However, unit sales of albums across both digital and physical formats showed a 6.4% decline to 94m, whilst single sales dropped for the first time in recent history by 3.4% - with a 182.2m total over the year.
Singles are selling nearly twice as much as albums are. Add to that the fact that the highest-selling album was Now That's What I Call Music! 86, which is an album that's just a compilation of singles by different artists. And this is completely disregarding radio play, which is 99.9% singles.
So, the following are not included in your definition of "most artists": Rihanna, Eminem, One Direction, Daft Punk, Swedish House Mafia, Taylor Swift, David Bowie, One Direction, Justin Timberlake, Avicii, Pink, Michael Bublé.
Clearly I'm misunderstanding your claim, because if I understood it right it's both outrageous and wrong.
I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. Some artists release non-album singles.
Oh, you were just moving the goalposts. My bad, I should've expected as much. Non-album singles haven't been a thing since record companies realized some people are going to buy the track twice, if they first sell the singles and then release the album the singles are on. They also realized that with the no-attention-span public these days, that keeps an artist fresh and on the charts which stops them from being forgotten.
Major labels want things with catchy hooks to get people to buy the albums they invested in. This is pretty obviously common knowledge.
So? This does not, in any way, make them have less content. This doesn't make them an inferior product as you implied, nor does it make your tastes superior for preferring other content.
In addition, see above: Labels want singles because people buy singles.
Quote from Dromar the Banisher »
Definitely agree with this. There are many albums out there where the non-singles are just as good (or at times even better) than the singles. Like Feathas says, singles are often chosen simply for being the most "catchy" or in other words accessible song - i.e the one that the largest amount of listeners are likely to enjoy. I too enjoy listening to full albums a lot more than I do listening to the radio and only hearing hit singles.
Anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence from a person that in all likelihood plays or has played for a non-insignificant time period a card game that emphasizes abstract thinking, long attention span, strategy, and mathematics. By the very definition we'd make up a strongly skewed sample, and certainly one inclined towards albums over singles due to the attention span requirement of the particular hobby we participate(d) in.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Music is still released in 40 to 80 minute chunks largely because it's an easily digestible length and lends itself well to telling a story or conveying a theme.
This is hardly true. There are very few acts that even try to tell stories that have gotten anywhere near the mainstream in past years. Acts such as The Protomen still exist, but are delegated to much of a sidestream audience.
I can literally think of like 10 concept albums that charted in the top 3 in the last 7 years. Concept albums are still pretty damn relevent even in the mainstream
And yeah, A lot of singles are super good, and oftens times they are the best songs on the album, but that doesn't necessarily mean the rest of the album is filler. It's just simply not as good. Which is fine.
Artistic worth is subjective. You can ask 40 million people what has high artistic worth and I'd be willing to bet you'd get 40 million different answers.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Yes it is a very widespread thing to have great songs not released as singles. The best thing to make a single is just a catchy song that'll get people hooked and talking and interested in the album, it doesn't have to be good in other ways. I pretty much only listen to full albums (and EPs and demos) because I just enjoy music a lot more that way, and a lot of my library is albums that I think are very consistent in quality.
Albums weren't even really a thing until the 60s, prior to that they were only collections of singles, so it's only been the fairly recent in the history of popular music that the medium even existed. Now, with most music being purchased digitally, the album is pretty much obsolete as a medium. Music is still released in 40 to 80 minute chunks largely because it's an easily digestible length and lends itself well to telling a story or conveying a theme.
The vast majority of artists don't even release singles. If you aren't expecting radio airplay, it simply isn't profitable. As far as pop music goes, singles are often explicitly planned to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Rock bands on major labels have/want a little more creative control, but there's still pressure on them to write hook-filled, radio-friendly numbers. Here's a quote from Deftone's Chino Moreno:
"'Back to School' was a mistake. A calculated song, that had been built up with only one aim in mind: It should be a single. ... 'Back to School' was released because I was an idiot. I wanted to prove something [to the record company]. Months later, after White Pony was released, they wanted us to do a new version of 'Pink Maggit.' They said we lost our heaviness, and there were no more singles on the album. First, I wanted to stick this idea up my ass, but then I thought: 'I'm gonna show those ****ers how easy it is to create a hit-single.' And so I rapped a hip hop part on that song, we shortened it and half an hour later, the hit-single was ready to roll on."
So if you prefer the non-single songs on an album, it probably just means you like songs with more content and aren't pushed to sell the album.
Exactly. And these days, people have the ability to choose which tracks they want anyway, so they choose not to pay for the filler. Therefore it's not profitable to release that filler anymore.
Non-concept albums are still albums. Especially in the past, where multiple tracks of the album were often recorded in the same studio with much of the same musicians, so they'd end up sonically similar without having a strong overarching theme.
This is hardly true. There are very few acts that even try to tell stories that have gotten anywhere near the mainstream in past years. Acts such as The Protomen still exist, but are delegated to much of a sidestream audience.
Vast majority of artists, by that token, never release anything. Or then they do so on Bandcamp, get seventeen downloads and are never heard of again. While they make up a significant part of the music being made, they make up for a negligible part of the music being consumed. They are not indicative of the viability of release formats in a commercial environment. And even then, I'm not sure where you get your numbers, considering there are thousands of EDM-producers on the internet that clearly release singles.
I'd assume you primarily listen to metal/rock music?
Edgy.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I wasn't referring to concept albums, I was referring to albums period. LPs didn't exist until 1948 and they were initially used as compilations. Artists didn't generally take advantage of the format for more than that until the 60s when you got things like Pet Sounds.
I'm sure you could find some actual albums in the 50s you could dig up, but my point is that a half decade of albums is still a very short amount of time in the overall history of popular music.
There are still unifying concepts in pop albums even if they aren't concept albums. Things like Daft Punk's RAM have sonic themes that tie them together and make them more than collections of songs. There are also pop artists like Janelle Monae who have done exactly the same thing as The Protomen.
For the purposes of this thread, I was considering artists who release albums through labels or if they self-release, they have a significant enough distribution that it doesn't require any effort to get their albums. I don't consider Bandcamp artists or Youtube artists unless they've used it as a springboard, like Justin Bieber.
So I'm looking at music being consumed.
I'll make an addendum to my earlier statement, though. Most artists don't release singles to their albums. Most artists still don't release singles period, but some underground and independent artists, like random EDM producers, drop non-album singles. They also drop EPs and splits, but if you add up all non-album releases, it's still just a drop in the bucket compared to album releases.
Then you would be wrong.
Buzzword.
I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. Some artists release non-album singles, but that doesn't signify anything, for the purposes of radio play, singles are designed to be ear worms. Major labels want things with catchy hooks to get people to buy the albums they invested in. This is pretty obviously common knowledge.
Definitely agree with this. There are many albums out there where the non-singles are just as good (or at times even better) than the singles. Like Feathas says, singles are often chosen simply for being the most "catchy" or in other words accessible song - i.e the one that the largest amount of listeners are likely to enjoy. I too enjoy listening to full albums a lot more than I do listening to the radio and only hearing hit singles.
But compilation albums are albums as well. Literally any recording with 25 minutes or four tracks in it counts as an album. In fact, the origin of the word comes from albums of 78rpm discs you'd need to play in order to have a full.. "Album". Each could only hold so much, so they were sold in groups.
I could bring up even concept albums, from Frank Sinatra. The earliest album by him (The Voice of Frank Sinatra) comes from 1946. That isn't even the earliest: By around 20's to 40's Jazz was the de facto popular music, and it wouldn't be hard to dig up numerous albums from the 40's in that genre (Count Basie, anyone?). For Big Band, Glen Miller was there. Apart from that, it'd be hard to refuse the influence of Woody Guthrie or Judy Garland. I should be able to dig up some stuff from the 30's, even.
Your point is also relatively moot, considering that a widespread "popular music", or indeed "popular culture" isn't that old of a thing. The term itself can be seen originating from the late 1800's, but is widely seen to encompass mostly early 20th century to the current day. In addition, it's pretty much irrelevant, since we're talking about the history of recorded popular music.
Sure. Exceptions to the rule.
Let me quote some numbers from the UK:
Singles are selling nearly twice as much as albums are. Add to that the fact that the highest-selling album was Now That's What I Call Music! 86, which is an album that's just a compilation of singles by different artists. And this is completely disregarding radio play, which is 99.9% singles.
So, the following are not included in your definition of "most artists": Rihanna, Eminem, One Direction, Daft Punk, Swedish House Mafia, Taylor Swift, David Bowie, One Direction, Justin Timberlake, Avicii, Pink, Michael Bublé.
Clearly I'm misunderstanding your claim, because if I understood it right it's both outrageous and wrong.
Oh, you were just moving the goalposts. My bad, I should've expected as much. Non-album singles haven't been a thing since record companies realized some people are going to buy the track twice, if they first sell the singles and then release the album the singles are on. They also realized that with the no-attention-span public these days, that keeps an artist fresh and on the charts which stops them from being forgotten.
So? This does not, in any way, make them have less content. This doesn't make them an inferior product as you implied, nor does it make your tastes superior for preferring other content.
In addition, see above: Labels want singles because people buy singles.
Anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence from a person that in all likelihood plays or has played for a non-insignificant time period a card game that emphasizes abstract thinking, long attention span, strategy, and mathematics. By the very definition we'd make up a strongly skewed sample, and certainly one inclined towards albums over singles due to the attention span requirement of the particular hobby we participate(d) in.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I can literally think of like 10 concept albums that charted in the top 3 in the last 7 years. Concept albums are still pretty damn relevent even in the mainstream
And yeah, A lot of singles are super good, and oftens times they are the best songs on the album, but that doesn't necessarily mean the rest of the album is filler. It's just simply not as good. Which is fine.