The amount of time you must have put into collating and sifting through that data - beyond impressive! I remember Warner Bros gave REM free reign to pick their lead singles. First one off Automatic For The People? Drive, off course. These days it might crop up as an album taster song just prior to the LP release. What happened to Everybody Hurts? Surely an obvious number one contender? FOURTH hit off the album in Britain, peaking at no.7 I think. Still, I always admired their wilfull ways.
Strategies for picking singles might have changed throughout the years. I don't know where I heard it, but I remember hearing way back in the 90s that the best strategy was to lead with a single that clicks with your core fans and later on release a single that might be popular among a wider audience, preferably for the third single. This would lengthen the shelf life of an album.
I remember first noticing this in summer/fall of '91, when three superstars chose unconventional first singles:
Guns 'n' Roses previewed Us Your Illusion with the hard-rocking "You Could Be Mine", showing that they hadn't totally wimped out before offering power ballads "Don't Cry" and "November Rain" as singles 2 and 4.
Prince served up the funky "Gett Off" as they say "For the culture" before giving us the more pop-friendly "Cream" and "Diamonds and Pearls".
U2 signaled a shift from roots-rock to electronic flavors with "The Fly" before dominating radio with "Mysterious Ways" and "One".
All did the trick of connecting with core audiences by going Top 10 at Mainstream Rock, R&B, and Modern Rock respectively, while failing to make the top 20 of the Hot 100, where all the follow-ups mentioned went Top 10.
Yeah, that makes sense as a method to keep the album cycle rolling along successfully. I also recall a bonkers thread on I Love Music about 1996's alternative rock albums, which stated that a left-field choice for a lead single can be attributed to the idea that momentum from the previous album's success was often enough to drive early sales, so best to keep the accessible, radio-friendly unit shifters in reserve for 2nd and 3rd singles if said early numbers didn't match the label's expectations.
I love this post! It has me thinking of the artists who have a contentious relationships with their hit songs and their fans' love of those same songs. I remember the Neil Young concert here in Seattle where he, during the first half of his show, played the entirety of Greendale, his "novel in songs." The crowd grew increasingly restless until Young said, very grumpily, "Don't worry. I'll be playing that old shit, too."
I mean, American Girls is Durutti Column cosplay. All the same, I enjoyed everything on the album. I don't mind imitation as respect as long as it's earnest, and in this case it seems to be.
I was a DJ at a small Pennsylvania radio station when the latest Doobie Brothers album came out. The first single, which got a huge push from the record company, was "Another Park, Another Sunday." I'm sure many readers here never heard of that song. The entire album was selling surprisingly badly for a band that big. Our radio station, though, was playing the track "Black Water" like crazy, because requests for it were through the roof. The record company took several months to catch up. It turned out to be the Doobie Brothers' first #1 single.
I'd love to hear people's thoughts about why hip-hop artists (and, more particularly, streaming-era rappers) don't necessarily preview albums with what turns out to be their biggest hit. While I love a lot of hip-hop, the streaming era trap stuff isn't necessarily my thing.
One idea might be what I see with artists like Taylor Swift and Ariana Grande--many first singles lyrically address recent events in the artist's life. That worked to get everyone's attention, but eventually "Me!" gave way to "Cruel Summer" and "7 Rings" eclipsed "Thank U, Next." Given the lyrical focus of hip-hop, not to mention the parasocial aspects of most superstar like in the streaming era, maybe this is the same case for rappers?
This assumes that ‘lead singles’ are chosen from a body of completed work with all other factors being equal, but that is not always the case.
I know one artist whose biggest hit was the fourth single releases from his album. Single 1 was released because it was the first one ready - having been written months before the rest of the album - and he had to get *something* released. Singles 2 and 3 were released while the artist was in rehab, so could not commit to a full promo schedule, but needed to keep some momentum going. Single 4 was released after the artist had left rehab and lost weight, just before Christmas, and became his signature hit, with the legend of it ‘saving his career’ giving it that extra bit of spice.
Single 5 consolidated his success.
Single 5 had been his opening number and single 4 the closing number at most of the his he has performed ever since.
American Girls would have been my choice as well. Great analysis. Question: if artists want to sell the album as an end goal, why not forego a full single release and just post first verse/chorus teasers for every song? Buy the album for full access. More $ directly to the artist, ownership for fans, streaming be damned.
Such a fascinating way of analyzing the data! It seems like these days artists have such a hard time generating enough buzz to get second singles going, I almost wonder if it could be strategic to keep the stronger of two reserved for album release day. It didn’t work for Harry, but Aperture got to #1 and American Girls only to #4 - if they were reversed AG may have spent longer at #1, but I doubt Aperture would have even made it that high (for the record I would’ve gone with Taste Back instead of Aperture, anyway!)
Very interesting! Does the artist always have full control over which songs become the single and how much of that is due to the record company/executive decisions? I wonder if that is something that was different in the past when selling full albums was a much bigger moneymaker?
The amount of time you must have put into collating and sifting through that data - beyond impressive! I remember Warner Bros gave REM free reign to pick their lead singles. First one off Automatic For The People? Drive, off course. These days it might crop up as an album taster song just prior to the LP release. What happened to Everybody Hurts? Surely an obvious number one contender? FOURTH hit off the album in Britain, peaking at no.7 I think. Still, I always admired their wilfull ways.
Strategies for picking singles might have changed throughout the years. I don't know where I heard it, but I remember hearing way back in the 90s that the best strategy was to lead with a single that clicks with your core fans and later on release a single that might be popular among a wider audience, preferably for the third single. This would lengthen the shelf life of an album.
I remember first noticing this in summer/fall of '91, when three superstars chose unconventional first singles:
Guns 'n' Roses previewed Us Your Illusion with the hard-rocking "You Could Be Mine", showing that they hadn't totally wimped out before offering power ballads "Don't Cry" and "November Rain" as singles 2 and 4.
Prince served up the funky "Gett Off" as they say "For the culture" before giving us the more pop-friendly "Cream" and "Diamonds and Pearls".
U2 signaled a shift from roots-rock to electronic flavors with "The Fly" before dominating radio with "Mysterious Ways" and "One".
All did the trick of connecting with core audiences by going Top 10 at Mainstream Rock, R&B, and Modern Rock respectively, while failing to make the top 20 of the Hot 100, where all the follow-ups mentioned went Top 10.
Yeah, that makes sense as a method to keep the album cycle rolling along successfully. I also recall a bonkers thread on I Love Music about 1996's alternative rock albums, which stated that a left-field choice for a lead single can be attributed to the idea that momentum from the previous album's success was often enough to drive early sales, so best to keep the accessible, radio-friendly unit shifters in reserve for 2nd and 3rd singles if said early numbers didn't match the label's expectations.
I love this post! It has me thinking of the artists who have a contentious relationships with their hit songs and their fans' love of those same songs. I remember the Neil Young concert here in Seattle where he, during the first half of his show, played the entirety of Greendale, his "novel in songs." The crowd grew increasingly restless until Young said, very grumpily, "Don't worry. I'll be playing that old shit, too."
I saw Neil when he did a whole set of “Everybody’s Rockin’” before getting to the “old shit”. That’s Neil for you!
Two Spotify playlists on this theme or the inverse:
their arms were twisted:
https://open.spotify.com/playlist/0yf2Zon9DJFGH8Z8V61eWm?si=879e93f4d3d5464f
they said they weren't hits:
https://open.spotify.com/playlist/1NBG2tFErYid3TDNdA33Pr?si=622cf132fa0748a8
GREAT piece of data mining work. Thanks for all the effort.
I mean, American Girls is Durutti Column cosplay. All the same, I enjoyed everything on the album. I don't mind imitation as respect as long as it's earnest, and in this case it seems to be.
Great research! I love this topic.
I was a DJ at a small Pennsylvania radio station when the latest Doobie Brothers album came out. The first single, which got a huge push from the record company, was "Another Park, Another Sunday." I'm sure many readers here never heard of that song. The entire album was selling surprisingly badly for a band that big. Our radio station, though, was playing the track "Black Water" like crazy, because requests for it were through the roof. The record company took several months to catch up. It turned out to be the Doobie Brothers' first #1 single.
I'd love to hear people's thoughts about why hip-hop artists (and, more particularly, streaming-era rappers) don't necessarily preview albums with what turns out to be their biggest hit. While I love a lot of hip-hop, the streaming era trap stuff isn't necessarily my thing.
One idea might be what I see with artists like Taylor Swift and Ariana Grande--many first singles lyrically address recent events in the artist's life. That worked to get everyone's attention, but eventually "Me!" gave way to "Cruel Summer" and "7 Rings" eclipsed "Thank U, Next." Given the lyrical focus of hip-hop, not to mention the parasocial aspects of most superstar like in the streaming era, maybe this is the same case for rappers?
I think pop artists should give fans more sway when it comes to picking singles. Label A&R people? Nah. Listen to your people!
This assumes that ‘lead singles’ are chosen from a body of completed work with all other factors being equal, but that is not always the case.
I know one artist whose biggest hit was the fourth single releases from his album. Single 1 was released because it was the first one ready - having been written months before the rest of the album - and he had to get *something* released. Singles 2 and 3 were released while the artist was in rehab, so could not commit to a full promo schedule, but needed to keep some momentum going. Single 4 was released after the artist had left rehab and lost weight, just before Christmas, and became his signature hit, with the legend of it ‘saving his career’ giving it that extra bit of spice.
Single 5 consolidated his success.
Single 5 had been his opening number and single 4 the closing number at most of the his he has performed ever since.
American Girls would have been my choice as well. Great analysis. Question: if artists want to sell the album as an end goal, why not forego a full single release and just post first verse/chorus teasers for every song? Buy the album for full access. More $ directly to the artist, ownership for fans, streaming be damned.
Such a fascinating way of analyzing the data! It seems like these days artists have such a hard time generating enough buzz to get second singles going, I almost wonder if it could be strategic to keep the stronger of two reserved for album release day. It didn’t work for Harry, but Aperture got to #1 and American Girls only to #4 - if they were reversed AG may have spent longer at #1, but I doubt Aperture would have even made it that high (for the record I would’ve gone with Taste Back instead of Aperture, anyway!)
What does it mean to release a single these days? I still think of a single as 7 inches of vinyl.👴
Very interesting! Does the artist always have full control over which songs become the single and how much of that is due to the record company/executive decisions? I wonder if that is something that was different in the past when selling full albums was a much bigger moneymaker?
Could there be a cool playlist derived from this post as well?
There could be. I'll see if I can put one together