Is For What It's Worth a single?

[jay]

Originally Posted by Dodfather

In Your Dreams surely HAS to be a single!! It's the most commercial, radio friendly song she's done in years!

I agree. It's definitely got a better chance than anything else on the album of being a hit.

[jellyman10]

'In Your Dreams' has such a breezy, hooky chorus. You hear it once, and it's in your head all day.

[LilyRose]

I agree that In Your Dreams is probably the most commercial song on the album.

Realistically though, no matter what song they pick, Stevie is not going to have a Top 10 hit here, simply because she's over 50.

[jay]

Originally Posted by LilyRose

I agree that In Your Dreams is probably the most commercial song on the album.

Realistically though, no matter what song they pick, Stevie is not going to have a Top 10 hit here, simply because she's over 50.

I agree, unless she teams up with Chris Brown or Jay-Z and goes down the r&b route she'll never have a top 40 hit either.

[snicksfan85]

Originally Posted by MacMan

The way Billboard layed out their sentence is wrong... She did say it was written about the 94 period... Billboard ran both that, and the fact that Mike Campbell From TP was there to perform it into one giant sentence... If they would have put a period after U.S.. Then it would have taken on a new meaning...

Exactly. But I think the reviewer legitimately walked away thinking that was reason she wrote it. And because Billboard is a more reliable music source, it's going to get repeated in those other articles that just regurgitate what's already been written because they don't get an interview with her.

[TrueFaith77]

With proper promotion tying it to Twilight or somehow creating its own Twilight iconography (i.e. a music video NOT directed by Dave Stewart), I do believe that "Moonlight" could have made some impact as a single. But obvs. there was backing from WB on something like that--probably because Twilight is not WB, right?

[snicksfan85]

Here's the problem with many of the songs on the album that immediately make them non-contenders for singles: They're too long. You go too far past the 4 minute mark and radio programmers balk especially in large monitored markets. There's only 5 songs that are under 5 minutes. And you're talking about having to cut well over a minute worth of material to make a radio edit. That's not going to happen.

So you have 5 options: Secret Love, For What It's Worth, In Your Dreams, Italian Summer, Cheaper Than Free. The last two are out. Neither would be strong enough to get radio play. I think the remaining three will be the singles from this album (assuming they get to the third).

[Bandon]

Originally Posted by snicksfan85

Here's the problem with many of the songs on the album that immediately make them non-contenders for singles: They're too long. You go too far past the 4 minute mark and radio programmers balk especially in large monitored markets. There's only 5 songs that are under 5 minutes. And you're talking about having to cut well over a minute worth of material to make a radio edit. That's not going to happen.

So you have 5 options: Secret Love, For What It's Worth, In Your Dreams, Italian Summer, Cheaper Than Free. The last two are out. Neither would be strong enough to get radio play. I think the remaining three will be the singles from this album (assuming they get to the third).

The length of many songs are too long for FM radio stations to consider playing them for alternative (other than a released single) airplay, which is limiting. However, they can cut any of the tracks down for singles. It happens all of the time and has for years. The flip side is when you hear an extended version of a song that was originally a 3 to 4 minute single.

[jellyman10]

Surely the purpose of releasing singles for veteran artists like Stevie now is primarily to pique interest in the album they're culled from, not to actually bother the 'pop charts'? There might be the occasional flukey hit, but otherwise the 'single' is little more than a way to ensure that radio plays a particular album track a lot. And yes, radio edits are a good idea, given how de-skilled DJ'ing has become.

Loz

[snicksfan85]

Originally Posted by Bandon

The length of many songs are too long for FM radio stations to consider playing them for alternative (other than a released single) airplay, which is limiting. However, they can cut any of the tracks down for singles. It happens all of the time and has for years. The flip side is when you hear an extended version of a song that was originally a 3 to 4 minute single.

Yes, I realize that. Very few of the singles I've worked have gone to radio straight off the album. But those radio edits are usually 30 or 40 seconds off and mostly instrumental stuff or an early fade out. You're talking about doubling that. That extra 30 or 40 seconds is a verse. Which one do you think Stevie's going to let them cut?

[Bandon]

Originally Posted by snicksfan85

Yes, I realize that. Very few of the singles I've worked have gone to radio straight off the album. But those radio edits are usually 30 or 40 seconds off and mostly instrumental stuff or an early fade out. You're talking about doubling that. That extra 30 or 40 seconds is a verse. Which one do you think Stevie's going to let them cut?

I'm thinking there may already be shorter versions of tracks that were produced a while back, and the decisions regarding the lengths of may have been determined then...not the other way around. We may have gotten some "extended" versions on IYD.

IDK..a big chunk towards the end of Annabel Lee could be cut. Maybe there is an alternative ending after the interlude..then chorus. After that point the song seems to meander on and on.

Does anyone really think Dave, Stevie and the record company thought radio stations were going to play 5 and 6 minute Stevie Nicks singles on regular rotations? They may have missed the mark on some of the promotional strategies, but I don't think they are that stupid...seriously.

[snicksfan85]

Originally Posted by Bandon

I'm thinking there may already be shorter versions of tracks that were produced a while back, and the decisions regarding the lengths of may have been determined then...not the other way around. We may have gotten some "extended" versions on IYD.

IDK..a big chunk towards the end of Annabel Lee could be cut. Maybe there is an alternative ending after the interlude..then chorus. After that point the song seems to meander on and on.

Does anyone really think Dave, Stevie and the record company thought radio stations were going to play 5 and 6 minute Stevie Nicks singles on regular rotations? They may have missed the mark on some of the promotional strategies, but I don't think they are that stupid...seriously.

I'm not calling them stupid but there's definitely a difference between the corporate mind looking for commercial viability of a single and that of an artist creating an album. There *is* a certain amount of planning on the front end that goes into at least the first or sometimes the second single. But you're saying that Stevie and Dave, two extremely creative people, sat down and said they were going to chop up a finished product on the off chance that it may be a single. I highly doubt that especially in Dave's case. That's why the songs end up being 5+ minutes long on the album. (Knowing Stevie, some of the ones that we got were probably whittled down from their 8 minute originals. lol) I can guarantee neither one of them knows anything about P1s or PPM and it's impact on programming because I know PDs and MDs who still don't understand it. And A&R/promotion people don't lurk around the studio for artists like Stevie so what they hear on a play through is going to be closer to what is on the album. And at that point, they're looking for a single out of the ones already recorded for it.

The easiest ones to make those decisions on are the ones that are already closest to the 4 minute mark because there's usually instrumental wiggle room. You start messing with lyrics and verses, you've got not only the chance of messing with continuity but the added cost of having to re-record and mix an entire song again.

There's no way Annabel Lee would be considered for a single. It's dated, no matter how modern the production is on it. But it's very Stevie and that's perfectly fine. Not every song is meant to be a single.

I'm not trying to be mean but I deal with this every day because I'm a radio promoter. I've worked superstars that get #1 after #1, heritage acts, indie acts, crossover acts. I've run the gamut of possible excuses a programmer will give you for not adding a single. She's already got age and lack of a hit in the past twenty years going against her, she needs the strongest thing possible off the album. I just look at it from that point of view.

That being said, I don't want Stevie to make records that sound like Taylor's or Katy's or P!nk's so that she can get radio play. I want them to sound like Stevie. And I want there to be a smart marketing plan in place that doesn't necessarily involve sinking more money into futile pursuits like terrestrial radio.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by snicksfan85

I'm not calling them stupid but there's definitely a difference between the corporate mind looking for commercial viability of a single and that of an artist creating an album. There *is* a certain amount of planning on the front end that goes into at least the first or sometimes the second single. But you're saying that Stevie and Dave, two extremely creative people, sat down and said they were going to chop up a finished product on the off chance that it may be a single. I highly doubt that especially in Dave's case. That's why the songs end up being 5+ minutes long on the album. (Knowing Stevie, some of the ones that we got were probably whittled down from their 8 minute originals. lol) I can guarantee neither one of them knows anything about P1s or PPM and it's impact on programming because I know PDs and MDs who still don't understand it. And A&R/promotion people don't lurk around the studio for artists like Stevie so what they hear on a play through is going to be closer to what is on the album. And at that point, they're looking for a single out of the ones already recorded for it.

The easiest ones to make those decisions on are the ones that are already closest to the 4 minute mark because there's usually instrumental wiggle room. You start messing with lyrics and verses, you've got not only the chance of messing with continuity but the added cost of having to re-record and mix an entire song again.

There's no way Annabel Lee would be considered for a single. It's dated, no matter how modern the production is on it. But it's very Stevie and that's perfectly fine. Not every song is meant to be a single.

I'm not trying to be mean but I deal with this every day because I'm a radio promoter. I've worked superstars that get #1 after #1, heritage acts, indie acts, crossover acts. I've run the gamut of possible excuses a programmer will give you for not adding a single. She's already got age and lack of a hit in the past twenty years going against her, she needs the strongest thing possible off the album. I just look at it from that point of view.

That being said, I don't want Stevie to make records that sound like Taylor's or Katy's or P!nk's so that she can get radio play. I want them to sound like Stevie. And I want there to be a smart marketing plan in place that doesn't necessarily involve sinking more money into futile pursuits like terrestrial radio.

So in YOUR expert opinion, what WOULD be the best song for a single off of the album? Also could you elaborate on Annabel lee? I am guessing you mean, because it is an older poem set to music? ( all of her songs are anyway)

[tabruns]

Originally Posted by snicksfan85

I'm not calling them stupid but there's definitely a difference between the corporate mind looking for commercial viability of a single and that of an artist creating an album. There *is* a certain amount of planning on the front end that goes into at least the first or sometimes the second single. But you're saying that Stevie and Dave, two extremely creative people, sat down and said they were going to chop up a finished product on the off chance that it may be a single. I highly doubt that especially in Dave's case. That's why the songs end up being 5+ minutes long on the album. (Knowing Stevie, some of the ones that we got were probably whittled down from their 8 minute originals. lol) I can guarantee neither one of them knows anything about P1s or PPM and it's impact on programming because I know PDs and MDs who still don't understand it. And A&R/promotion people don't lurk around the studio for artists like Stevie so what they hear on a play through is going to be closer to what is on the album. And at that point, they're looking for a single out of the ones already recorded for it.

The easiest ones to make those decisions on are the ones that are already closest to the 4 minute mark because there's usually instrumental wiggle room. You start messing with lyrics and verses, you've got not only the chance of messing with continuity but the added cost of having to re-record and mix an entire song again.

There's no way Annabel Lee would be considered for a single. It's dated, no matter how modern the production is on it. But it's very Stevie and that's perfectly fine. Not every song is meant to be a single.

I'm not trying to be mean but I deal with this every day because I'm a radio promoter. I've worked superstars that get #1 after #1, heritage acts, indie acts, crossover acts. I've run the gamut of possible excuses a programmer will give you for not adding a single. She's already got age and lack of a hit in the past twenty years going against her, she needs the strongest thing possible off the album. I just look at it from that point of view.

That being said, I don't want Stevie to make records that sound like Taylor's or Katy's or P!nk's so that she can get radio play. I want them to sound like Stevie. And I want there to be a smart marketing plan in place that doesn't necessarily involve sinking more money into futile pursuits like terrestrial radio.

A lot of this is probably why no one listens to radio anymore.

[WildHearted]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

So in YOUR expert opinion, what WOULD be the best song for a single off of the album? Also could you elaborate on Annabel lee? I am guessing you mean, because it is an older poem set to music? ( all of her songs are anyway)

Well, I'm not them... so I might be wrong.. but I think they means it sounds 'dated' in terms of the style and everything. Many people have remarked that it sounds like it could have been a classic FM song (which is great, and probably why a lot of people like it because essentially we're all fans of classic FM). . However classic FM songs were radio hits in the 70s/80s, which is not conducive to a radio hit today.

That said, I personally don't have an opinion on whether or not it would be a good single. I don't like most of what's on the radio today so I have trouble predicting what other people would like, I suppose.