Jump to content

How big of a break is too big of a break?


Recommended Posts

  • #FreeBritney Activist

really depends on the artist.

 

artists like Adele i feel benefit from 4-5 year breaks while Xtina for example could have been bigger competition to Britney in the 2000s if she released more often, tho Britney would have still come out on top :gaycatney5:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It really depends, but I think anything above 3 years is a big gamble. See Witness, she even had the Superbowl in between.

 

But then males have it better, JT was fine in 2013 and Bruno's comeback will probably be too, even though 5 years is WAY too long :skull:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • #FreeBritney Activist
Enzolorenzo

It depends tbh. Didn’t Sade release an album in 2010 after a 10 years break which turned out to be a big success? I feel like some artists might benefit from breaks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone at the start of their career shouldn’t wait more than 2 or 3 years for their sophomore album!

 

a more established act can wait up until 5 years, but at that point things become more risky depending on the artist 

Link to post
Share on other sites
StrangerInTheDark

Break makes no difference unless market is changing. Last few crucial times for pop stars to take a break were in late 00s amd mid 10s.

Edited by StrangerInTheDark
Link to post
Share on other sites
mxoonlight

Anything more than three if you aren’t doing more projects, the demand for you is NOT that high

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gabriel Florin

Depends on artist. If you're an alternative artist like Fiona Apple, who can have 5-7 years gap between studio albums but always cames back with a bang, it doesn't matter. If you're a mainstream pop singer like Christina Aguilera, 5 year gaps are TOO MUCH 

Edited by Gabriel Florin
Link to post
Share on other sites
Komet blu

I think it largely depends on what kind of artist you are + who's your target audience + the general state of the industry, but anything over 5 years for someone who considers themselves a full-time recording artist is too much imo.

 

tenor.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
istan4badgalriri

Depends what the status of the artist is and whether they remain present in the public eye during their hiatus or just completely disappear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mxoonlight said:

Anything more than three if you aren’t doing more projects, the demand for you is NOT that high

:cm:

Link to post
Share on other sites
perpetual novice

Depends on the kind of music you make.  If you are a popgirl and work with large teams of people and just release bops and stuff like that there's no reason to vanish for multiple years and expect success when you come back. If you're more of a singer-songwriter and need time to live your life to get the material you need to write an album then a handful of years is more reasonable

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kiss It Better

as others have said, it depends on the artists

someone like Katy Perry should release more often (2-3 years break is more than enough) while someone like Adele could take over 5 years break and do well

Link to post
Share on other sites
Artistofthedecade

According to CM analysis 

Peaks-3.png

 

3 i would say. Maybe even 2 years at streaming era. 

Edited by Artistofthedecade
Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on how you end your previous era and how you keep yourself in the spotlight. For example, JT took a 7-year break and still smashed while Katy took a 4-year break and flopped.

 

Like most people have said, anything over 3 years is pushing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
GreatestLoveofAll

for pop stars like Dua or Ariana, anything over three years without any music is devastating. If your like Beyonce you can afford to take four, five year breaks because your versatile to do other projects and keep your name out there. Not that the other two cant but I don't see it working for them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...