Fleetwood Mac and singles
 

Why doesn't Fleetwood mac have more #1 singles. As a matter of fact their single's record is appaling if you consider how great the band is. When i hear that Whitney houstan and Mariah Carey have like 15 #1 hit each i fall down. And you never even hear those songs. There are just certain groups and people that get #1 hits in their sleep. Elvis is just ridiculus. He has #1 hits after his death. He has like 50 total. But at least you know those hits. But Michal Bolton has like 30 #1's. How do these guys do it. The Jackson 5 had 4 #1 singles in a row. Fleetwood mac just can't do that. Which isn't nesacarily bad. They sell albums not singles. But you'd think when Rumours was at it's peak Go You Oen way and Don't Stp would've hit #1 And Rhiannon probibly is more popular then ANY rumours song has TWO ones but they're next to each other. It didn't even crack the top 10. And Stevie as a solo artist has not has 1 #1 hit. It's NOT fair. Mariah has 17 in a row, I'm not kidding. But can anyone name 5 of those hits. I can't. It's there are just some people that can put out a song in their sleep and have it go to number one but not our mac members. only Dreams could.

Well, now the singles charts are done differently, but back then, singles charts (I think) were built solely on how many singles were sold. If you notice, I believe Dreams is their only gold single (sold over 500,000 copies). Plus, Fleetwood Mac, and this can be considerably argued, to me is NOT a pop band. As much as people want to say it, they aren't. If they were, wouldn't they have more #1's? A "pop" band, group, or artist somehow can chug out #1 hits left and right. Rumours, the reason why there was only one #1 hit was because everyone already HAD the album. Why buy the singles? It's hard to sell singles when millions of people are buying the entire album. As far as other albums go, I think video DID kill the radio stars. Not that FM didn't have their success in the video era, but I think some songs lost ground due to lackluster or mundane videos. PLUS, sometimes singles were released during this time without videos. Nightbird, After the Glitter Fades, technically Edge of 17, Has Anyone Ever Written..., Love in Store, etc. But honestly, I've wondered why they don't have more #1's. It's pretty shocking for how popular they are or were or whatever you want to say.

hawkeye, you manage to crack me up every time:D you are the best.
do you really wanna judge FM using the same parameters you use to judge mariah (back to your asylum, bitch) carey? i don't think so.
a- chart acts such as the ones you mentioned have a sole purpuse when releasing a single and that is to make it a #1, they use writers and producers who specialize in producing formulated chart-killers, and spend millions promoting them. their singles are being judged only by their chart success, art is no factor here.
b- despite all this, fleetwood mac had a us#1 (and a uk#1 too), the same amount as pink floyd, eric clapton and neil young. neither REM nor bob dylan had a #1 single. does it make them less successful or less important? nope.
c-unfortunetly for me, i can count at least 10 mariah (...and take whitney there with ya) carey #1s very easily.
d-michael bolton had only two (and not thirty) #1s, still, i can ASSURE you that fleetwood mac's forthcoming release won't be ignored the way michael bolton's new album is being ignored these days. chart success comes and goes while musical achievements stays on.

Michael Bolton has had 30 number one hits?LOL you must have gotten that statistic from the same place where you came up with the percentage of Stevie's fans who are gay and lesbian.

thank you tommer, i think. But yeah i didn't remember things clearly. Maybe i'm confusing Michale Bolton with someone else. And sorcerer, you're right. Most people WERE buying the album.

I think what it comes down to, is that Fleetwood Mac is considered an "album-oriented" act, rather than a "singles-oriented" one.

Whereas with most bands, their singles are pretty much the best they have to offer, for Fleetwood Mac, singles are usually just a means of alerting people to the fact that they have an album out... and The Mac's general audience is one who would be more likely to purchase an entire album, as opposed to a single (when singles were actually available to purchase, that is).

The general view within the music business now seems to be that every artist should be an "album artist," hence the sheer lack of commercially available singles. They don't want you to run out to buy Christina Aguilera's new single... they want you to buy the entire album.
What they seem to forget though, is that many of these acts havent established themselves as artists who record enough "must-have" songs, to entice us into buying their albums.

Which is exactly why Napster, and Aimster, and KaZaA, and AudioGalaxy, and WinMX, and all those that will follow, have become so popular.
They allow us, the listener, to get exactly what we want... the song we hear on the radio.



Johnny Stew

Albums versus singles sales
 

Just thought I'd throw this out there as a little food for thought....

CHOMP CHOMP :p

The Beatles come to mind for those of you who say that those who buy albums don't buy singles and vicey versey.....
Or are they just an exception to the rule???

And I'd really hate to call the Beatles a POP band!


Joe

your right
 

You're right, most people dont go out and buy singles anymore...not with internet and all that..if they buy anything its the album...theres not ONE song on billboards hot 100 (pop) that has went GOLD...theres the difference..back then, sales were important for chart success...until the 80s anyway....people actually BOUGHT singles, alot, back then...a lot of hit songs now, dont even have a CD single release, just promo for radio...things have changed

Exactly, but what you forgot to mention is that every song on the album sounds almost exactly the same!
:laugh: