|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 7, 2021 17:15:30 GMT
The idea of what a single is or should be has been buzzing in my head for a while, I suppose as we simultaneously did the Beatles albums threads (omitting non-album singles) and the Beach Boys singles threads.
I thought it might be fun to talk about singles: what makes one; what makes one work best; to include (or not) on albums; the perfect pairing with B-sides; how they factor(ed) into your music consumption and enjoyment; and, of course, some favorite examples.
I've said many times that singles were not for me what they had been for older listeners or what they were for younger (post-album, online) listeners. Back in my day (said the crotchety old man), meaning the latter half of the 80s and the 90s especially, actual physical singles were meaningless, at least in my own experience. I never bought one until 1999, when I bought the Prince CD single "1999" (remake). What a 1970 listener might call a single, we called a video. That was how we really referred to music. I actually think that's the term we used, at least in my dumb little hometown. I think we'd say "Poison put out a new video, 'Nothin But a Good Time,'" as opposed to "a new single..." Radio was almost entirely irrelevant in my part of the counry: it was overwhelmingly either classic rock or AM farm reports and the like. There was some modern rock, but not much. Video was really how one heard singles.
It almost never occurred to me, then, that a single (video) wouldn't be on an album! Because I was barely aware of the option of buying singles, it seemed ridiculous. Why put out a video with a song of which a person couldn't buy the cassette? Thinking back, I don't really even remember any. Maybe "She's On It" by the Beastie Boys? A video of that appeared between Licensed to Ill and Paul's Boutique, and it wasn't on an album. I had a VHS recording of the video and cherished it, having NO IDEA from whence it came! It was just some mysterious thing that I thought was new. (It was actually a pre-LTI single.)
Not until I heard about Belle & Sebastian in the latter 90s and early 00s, probably, did the idea really sink in that this was a thing: non-album singles. (Beatles singles were on albums, as far as I knew: remember, one of my favorite albums growing up was the singles comp Hey Jude. In my mind for a long time, that was an album.) Even then I didn't give it much thought, because I hated B&S.
It's in these past 20 years that I've really thought about the topic. And in that time, singles became prominent again above albums, thanks to online streaming and downloading that didn't exist before. So as I said, there's a kind of "singles sandwich" around my era of the album and video.
That's a long prologue to the meat of the thread, which you ought to provide. Starting now. Take it wherever you wish.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2021 18:11:47 GMT
I have had a back and forth relationship with singles vs albums pretty much my whole life. I became aware of rock music at a very young age at the tail end of the 60s going into 1970. I had older siblings who carried around transistor radios, so I got a pretty daily dose of the current hits, no matter where I was in the house or the yard. My early record buying experience (with my allowance) was singles, because that was all I knew and all I could afford. My only knowledge of albums was my dad's collection of classical and easy listening, which he would put on as background music when we had company. All through my childhood and into my mid teens I built up quite a collection of singles, and some of them are still playable to this day.
Then in the early 80s my sister left home and left me in charge of her huge album collection until she could send for them. It was sort of an "Almost Famous" moment, if ya know what I mean ("It will change your life!") Not long after, I started buying some of my own albums because I was getting more into "the album experience" rather than leafing through stacks of 45s and swapping them out out on the turntable every 3 or 4 minutes. Also I found it easier to just put on an album when friends (whether it was the guys or a girl) came over as we liked to hang out and listen to music.
Although I still occasionally bought singles in the next few years, I pretty much stopped after switching over to cds in the late 80s. It became very difficult to find a cd single of a particular song I was after, so I stayed busy building up my cd album collection. I know they tried different formats for cd singles, but nothing ever seemed to catch on. I do have a few 3" inch cds in my collection and an adaptor ring or two.
So I guess what I'm getting around to is that my buying preferences regarding singles or albums has been driven by availability and convenience. To me, music is music. I like what I like.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 7, 2021 20:29:20 GMT
Thank you for starting this thread. Several times I thought about starting a thread on singles, not so much about what constitutes a good one, but why the single was/is a powerful tool in the history of popular music. Not to sound corny (though I will ), but I think we would all agree that music is, indeed, the soundtrack of our lives. It is literally a part of our lives since the moment we're born. And usually - usually - it is in the form of a single.
Like sockit, I've been aware of singles almost my entire life, whether I realized it or not. In our home, we always had an AM radio playing in the kitchen. I vividly remember eating breakfast at the kitchen table before school and soaking up the sounds of the day. Growing up, in our car, the radio was always on. Some of my memories of certain 60's songs revolve around riding in the family car. Out in the backyard, when my Dad was doing lawn work or washing the car, the radio was playing. At the local pool, you guessed it, the radio was blaring all the hits (and this goes back to Beatlemania). In the gym after school, somebody was blaring music. And, finally, when I went to bed, yep, I would listen to my transistor radio and be in AM radio heaven.
I apologize if this post appears like "Add Some Music To Your Day" by Sheriff John Stone, but that's how it was. SINGLES were played everywhere. In our house, we had mostly 45s. That had more to do with financial reasons than anything else, but, as I remember, that's how it was with most of my friends, too. We had...records. We bought 45s. We played a stack of singles. The only albums we had were Christmas albums. My Dad had a small collection of Frank Sinatra albums, but he never played them. He did play "Strangers In The Night", though.
I always viewed albums as things that were played by teenagers, and that's kind of how it played out for me. I only started to listen to and purchase albums when I became a high school and college student. I couldn't see myself devoting the necessary time to listening to an album as a kid. I couldn't/wouldn't devote the time. Too many other distractions. As a teenager, after playing and watching sports, listening to albums was probably my biggest pastime. I would save and budget my money, and try to buy albums on a fairly consistent basis. Maybe surprising to some of the album fans on this board, I stopped buying albums at a relatively young age, somewhere in my 40's. Oh, I always picked up the latest album release by my favorite groups, but that was it. Again, I only listened to individual songs by most other groups.
I'm sorry for the rambling and going off topic, but I truly appreciate singles. That's why I liked shows like American Bandstand. That's why I liked MTV. That's why I like music playing in the background at work. That's why I have favorite radio stations programmed in my car. That's why I assemble comps - it's an accumulation of singles, or single songs. Yeah, occasionally I'll take some time and listen to an album, but not like I used to. I am now very selective as to what I spend my time listening to. My days of discovering new groups and buying their albums is pretty much a thing of the past. The albums I buy now, and it's very few, are Greatest Hits packages of old groups I'm trying to catch up on. Just give me their best SONGS.
OK, in keeping with the intent of the thread, I think there are very few rules when it comes to a successful single. I believe if it's a good song, it will overcome any obstacles and win in the end. Short/long, loud/soft, gimicky/pure, old-time/contemporary, doesn't matter. I sometimes think too much time is spent analyzing or over-analyzing songs to determine if it is "single material". Of course there are exceptions, but I would feel more confident in using an artist's best song over one that might appear to have more single potential. If I'm gonna fail, I'm going down with my best, not hiding it away on an album.
Whew, I feel better now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2021 5:25:20 GMT
Kapitan and SJS, I really enjoyed reading your posts. Our collective reminiscences tell quite a story about how much music is a huge part of our lives and memories of growing up. The radio and singles played a massive role in that.
I'd like to approach this subject from a different angle if you guys don't mind, in hopes that it will help shed some light on what goes into selecting a song as a single.
About 15 years ago when I was living in a larger city and pretty much immersed in the local music scene, I was regularly attending songwriting workshops where there was quite a bit of education and discussion on writing hit songs (interestingly, you never attend classes or find books instructing how to write album tracks or filler!). The big emphasis was on hooks. You had to have musical and lyrical hooks or the instructor would respond to your composition with negative remarks like, "I'm not hearing any hook" or "That phrasing is very weak; What is it that you want me to remember about the song?" There seems to be some very ridged rules regarding what constitutes hit material. I have a number of books that go on and on about the importance of THE HOOK.
Many songs are pretty obvious as far as this magical hook goes. "Good good good vibrations...." Yeah pretty obvious. I think Mike had a handle on hooks.
But what about something like Led Zeppelin's 1975 single "Trampled Underfoot"? The title isn't even mentioned in the song. And what is the hook? "Talkin' bout love"? I don't know how well it charted, but it was a single and I did hear it on the radio. I'm confused.....
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 8, 2021 12:33:31 GMT
Led Zeppelin is a strange case because of their intentional disregard (disdain?) for the industry and its conventions. They barely released singles, and rarely of songs that sounded like singles. But because they were pretty popular from Day One, and had their business side of thing set up, they were able to benefit from unconventional choices.
"Trampled Underfoot" hit #38 in the US, which was its highest worldwide position. (It did not chart at all in the UK.)
As a rule--though yes, rules were made to be broken, etc.--I do think the way to approach a single is the hook. That could be musical, lyrical, melodic, even production (or in the age of videos, a look). But the idea is to assume listeners didn't seek you out, don't know who you are, and are going to make an impression of you quickly: if you want to stand out, you have to stand out. It doesn't have to be your best song, but it probably ought to be the song with the best chance of hooking the public.
Breaking the rules, though? I think when you're a massive artist, you can take liberties. People already know who you are and look to you for what's next. But there's always the risk of alienating people, too, as Beach Boys fans can see in that band's history.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 8, 2021 13:43:17 GMT
As I posted above, I wouldn't stick to many...rules, but I do think some things help. Yes, the hook and the melody is important, but I also like a nice intro and some kind of tag if possible. Those two can pull everything together. I think that especially helps on the radio.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2021 15:38:49 GMT
I think there's a lot to be said for the intention of the group. Zeppelin may have been an odd example because they were an album oriented group from the start. They really didn't need to release any singles, because they were getting plenty of FM airplay. Do you know how long it was before I realized that "Stairway to Heaven" was not a single? Then you get a group like Three Dog Night who was all about singles. Name one of their albums; I'll wait.... . But seriously, my first album experience with Three Dog Night was the early comp Golden Biscuits. My sister had that album, which she played quite often. And there were still so many of their hits to come in the following years. The Beach Boys started out as a singles group. Surfin' Safari was never going to be a classic album, but merely a vehicle for their first singles. But then Brian changed that with Pet Sounds, (although he was gearing up with some excellent solid albums before that). It seems like after PS and the Smile situation, the Boys focused on being an album band while attempting to hold on to the singles aspect. They seemed to teeter back and forth until Endless Summer and the resurgence of their early hits shifted their focus back to singles.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 8, 2021 17:15:22 GMT
Zeppelin may have been an odd example because they were an album oriented group from the start. They really didn't need to release any singles, because they were getting plenty of FM airplay. I think this is exactly right. But I also think most bands can't afford that approach, because it's asking a lot more of DJs and listeners to invest in an album than a single. I realize music turned toward albums in that era and that FM changed how radio worked, but there is still something more practical about sending DJs and record stores two songs (A&B side) as highlights, or a sampler, than a 35-50 minute album and expecting them to digest it all. If you're new or unknown, that's just not going to happen!
Zep, though, had industry experience and some influence already. I don't think they doubted for a moment that they could call the shots themselves and still do just fine.
I actually think Queen tried a somewhat similar approach. Their first two albums were, to me, more "albums" than collections of singles and songs. And the singles from them flopped entirely. Things began to change only in 1974 with "Killer Queen" and then especially in 1975 with you-know-what. From then on, I think they were very much a singles band (and their chart success backs it up).
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 8, 2021 17:18:34 GMT
Also I only just realized that this thread kept my placeholder title, "Singles," rather than some clever song, album, or band tie-in I was hoping to do. Yes, I am that lame that I actually enjoy coming up with "clever" (ironic quotation marks, there...) titles. There is something wrong with me...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2021 23:20:02 GMT
Also I only just realized that this thread kept my placeholder title, "Singles," rather than some clever song, album, or band tie-in I was hoping to do. Yes, I am that lame that I actually enjoy coming up with "clever" (ironic quotation marks, there...) titles. There is something wrong with me... You could have named it after people like me, "Singles Over 40 Club".
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Aug 9, 2021 20:45:17 GMT
It's hard to define what should be a single. 3 minutes long, medium tempo or uptempo? Then where the bleep does Like a Rolling Stone fit into this scenario? The song is freaking 6 minutes long, the singer is talk/singing, the words...well, there's just so darn many of them! And yet everyone recognizes this as one of the greatest rock and roll singles of all time. When rock and roll started happening in the 50's, singles, or 45's as we called them back then, were what was happening. Albums were an afterthought. If you sold a lot of singles, then the record company might put together an album...Here's Little Richard....Berry is On Top....collecting recent singles and studio leftovers. Only two rock and roll singers had number one albums in the 50's, Elvis Presley and Ricky Nelson. Elvis was the Beatles of that generation, so everything RCA put out with his name on it was a hit; and Ricky had the benefit of weekly exposure on television. Then we get to the Pet Sounds/Rubber Soul era, where bands start thinking of albums as albums. A work that is meant to be appreciated as a whole. Suddenly everyone is taking rock music seriously...what a bummer. FM stations start playing album tracks. The album thing as a radio format catches on, and in a few years, this leads to AOR...a gift from the corporate gods. Now the record companies are telling the AOR programmers what songs to play off the big albums. Then they play those songs over and over until everyone is sick of them. So it's back to singles. Maybe not physically, but it's that principal in play. Feed the masses 4 or 5 songs from the big albums, and everyone will go out to buy them for those 5 songs. Then along comes downloading. Downloading single songs. Streaming single songs. I think we've come full circle. Who listens to actual albums anymore, other than geezers like me? In 30 years, will anyone remember the greatest albums of today's stars?
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 13, 2021 17:49:13 GMT
Perhaps this thread is for nought: back listening to that Jakob Dylan interview on Rogan that I referenced in the "Interviews" thread and he was discussing his relationship and interaction with label personnel, and when asked about who chooses singles, Dylan said "they call them focus tracks now; they aren't singles anymore."
So. Focus tracks. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 13, 2021 18:10:55 GMT
One odd experience with singles from 2000.
By then, the notion of a single was pretty much antiquated, although bands did still release CD singles. I don't even know if they're a thing anymore.
But, I remember Iron Maiden had a new song that got some airplay (that's shocking enough), call The Wicker Man.
Lo and behold, when I got the new Maiden album, Brave New World, I was surprised that the version of The Wicker Man on the album was different.
The chorus on the single version was
Your time will come (Thy will be done) Your time will come
On the album the "They will be done" response lyric was gone. And there was some additional lead guitar playing over the chorus on the album version. Being the completist I was at the time, I did find a copy of The Wicker Man single at a record store to get the "Radio Version" as it was called.
But, I agree with lonelysummer, the industry seems to be shifting back to singles....er um focus tracks these days. You're even seeing legacy artists starting to stray from full albums. Ringo just released an EP today. I've said before, but I really think the "album as an artform" notion isn't as present today.
Although things are cyclical, so you never know.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 13, 2021 18:17:09 GMT
I'm going to state the obvious, but I think there is a direct relationship between a single's success and an album's success. Duh. But think about it...how often does an album "take off" after a hit single jump starts it? The artists who were going for hit singles knew that, too. They weren't making a helluva lot of money on 45s/singles. I've never looked at it closely, meaning the statistics, but hit single(s) must equal hit albums in many cases, and vice versa. The single tanks and the album might be/is in trouble, too.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 13, 2021 18:23:35 GMT
But, I agree with lonelysummer, the industry seems to be shifting back to singles....er um focus tracks these days. You're even seeing legacy artists starting to stray from full albums. Ringo just released an EP today. I've said before, but I really think the "album as an artform" notion isn't as present today. I agree, too, but I also think it's been going on longer than we realize. As I posted above, I think MTV in 1981 was just an extension of the radio. Those videos were playing/featuring singles. Instead of turning on AM/FM radio, you turned on your TV. To listen to...songs. And, as soon as MTV started to fade, along came Napster and itunes and Spotify and the like. Are people turning to those outlets more for albums or singles?
|
|