supertiffany Posted August 28 Posted August 28 which is better to start smashing or be flopping on your 6th album?
Parallel Posted August 28 Posted August 28 (edited) Smashing Longevity >>> Look at Cher she has like 20 flop albums and 5 successful ones and she's a multigenerational icon Edited August 28 by Parallel 4
Spicy Pisces Posted August 28 Posted August 28 The 6th album is proving to be the Snatch Game of the MPGs: it separates the tops from the bottom queens. LEMONADE, Reputation, Short n' Sweet... 1 1
itshyolee Posted August 28 Posted August 28 Smashing during your 6th album is a lot better than flopping during that era. Longevity will always be a great look on a MPG resume 2
IfNotForYou Posted August 28 Posted August 28 4 minutes ago, Parallel said: Smashing Longevity >>> Look at Cher she has like 20 flop albums and 5 successful ones and she's a multigenerational icon That is rare nowadays isn't? You could flop your way in the XX century and still score a hit single, a Gold record here and there and radio would play artists after a certain age
Thor Posted August 28 Posted August 28 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Parallel said: Smashing Longevity >>> Look at Cher she has like 20 flop albums and 5 successful ones and she's a multigenerational icon 3 minutes ago, itshyolee said: Smashing during your 6th album is a lot better than flopping during that era. Longevity will always be a great look on a MPG resume What longevity if your previous 5 albums bombed? Edited August 28 by Thor 1
Expensive Taste Posted August 28 Posted August 28 Katy Perry will do things differently and hit it big with her 7th album. 3
ariananext Posted August 28 Posted August 28 (edited) I would rather have my first 6 albums being successful because that's a solid career even if after that you flop, it makes more sense. Flopping for years and then smashing is weird, you don't know how long it's gonna last and I guess you don't really have budget to evolve for years and it would be a bummer to try for so long, I would be more motivated in the first scenario, if it makes sense. Edited August 28 by ariananext 3 1 1
UseYourIllusion2002 Posted August 28 Posted August 28 11 minutes ago, Thor said: What longevity if your previous 5 albums bombed? Exactly it's better to have your first few albums smash and then decent success down the road. Sabrina's lucky because she's only 25. 3
Khal Posted August 28 Posted August 28 Isn't the obvious answer that it's better to start flopping on your 6th album? That means you already had 5 prior albums that did reasonably well, while your 6th smash album might be your one and only smash, as it'll probably prove for certain artists. 2
DanyelP23 Posted August 28 Posted August 28 33 minutes ago, Thor said: What longevity if your previous 5 albums bombed? Can they really be considered bombs if each of them managed to get the next one after green-lit? 2
UnusualBoy Posted August 28 Posted August 28 The flopping with that album, it means you already had 5 successful eras vs starting to smash with your 6th album but having 5 flops under your sleeve.
supertiffany Posted August 28 Author Posted August 28 1 minute ago, DanyelP23 said: Can they really be considered bombs if each of them managed to get the next one after green-lit? exactly, it's not like there was big investment for marketing was done too for the first set of albums not to mention it made a lot of selling tours
Pheromosa Posted August 28 Posted August 28 Even getting to 6 albums in the first place is an impossible task 1
zoldyck Posted August 28 Posted August 28 Mental stress alone over 5 failures is alot. Most people would stop trying, start questioning whether its worth or its time to switch up....
Thor Posted August 28 Posted August 28 34 minutes ago, DanyelP23 said: Can they really be considered bombs if each of them managed to get the next one after green-lit? Uhh yeah? Who cares if an album was green lit when no one bought it? Like what kinda dumbass take. Katy has been getting her albums green lit too, but no one in their right mind would call her successful. 1
Gelato Posted August 28 Posted August 28 (edited) kinda depends, like if you haven't smashed until your 6th album and you're 30 then it might be a bad thing because the industry is ageist so you might only have one or two big eras before you start flopping again but if you've been churning out albums since you were a teenager and you break through in your early 20s with your sixth album then that's fine Edited August 28 by Gelato
Bloodflowers. Posted August 28 Posted August 28 1. Control [1986] 2. Rhythm Nation [1989] 3. Janet [1993] 4. Velvet Rope [1997] 5. All for You [2001] Her 6th album was Damita Jo [2004], so I would say smashing for 15 years straight and then flopping is a pretty solid career
Feanor Posted August 28 Posted August 28 Start flopping, assuming your first 5 albums have all been successes. Usually with 5 hit albums, an artist would already be considered a household name, which means you most likely are rich af already & have enough name recognition to keep touring or do brand deals/judging gigs for the rest of your life.
Doctor Dick Posted August 28 Posted August 28 (edited) It's super impressive to smash from the get-go. Besides, Sabrina's 6th album smashing doesn't prove her longevity yet. Longevity comes when you smash for years on end (Beyoncé, Taylor Swift) or stay relevant for over a decade (Lady Gaga). If Sabrina's next album flops she had no longevity and will be seen as a one era wonder. Edited August 28 by Doctor Dick
YourFavoriteWeapon Posted August 28 Posted August 28 Most people think S&S is her debut album so it doesn't really matter at the end of the day
ericcartman Posted August 28 Posted August 28 I'd rather flop. If those 5 smash albums are spaced out well, that's a solid 10 years of smashing which makes you on your way to icon/legend route.
Recommended Posts