Albums That Could Have Sold More If The...

[EvanJ]

Biggest Hit Was The First Single
Mya (2000)
Uncle Kracker (2002-2003)
Counting Crows (2002-2003)
"Jagged Little Pill" had the first two singles do the worst but the Number 1s sold albums also.
TLC: "CrazySexyCool": Would it have sold more if "Waterfalls" was the first single?
The Ataris (2003)
Blink-182: Would they have sold more if "All The Small Things" was the first single
Stone Temple Pilots (1999-2000): "Sour Girl" revived the album
Would Matchbox Twenty have sold more if "Unwell" was the first single?
Would Jessica Simpson have sold more if "I Think I'm In Love With You" was the first single? But then it couldn't have been a summer video.
Would Nappy Roots have sold more if "Po' Folks" was the first single?

[j]

It's hard to say. It seems to me that the Uncle Kracker and matchbox 20 albums couldn't be saved even despite the huge radio success of later singles. On the other hand, it also seems prudent to leave the more radio-friendly singles till later so that the album can continue to sell well months after its release.

Maybe a large fan base is required for the latter to happen. If you're not that big, then release the single you think will do the best on the charts as the first single.

[singingsparrow]

j said:

It's hard to say. It seems to me that the Uncle Kracker and matchbox 20 albums couldn't be saved even despite the huge radio success of later singles. On the other hand, it also seems prudent to leave the more radio-friendly singles till later so that the album can continue to sell well months after its release.

Maybe a large fan base is required for the latter to happen. If you're not that big, then release the single you think will do the best on the charts as the first single.

I think at least matchbox twenty's album is selling pretty well, considering it has sold 27,000+ copies a week for months now. Its sales are steady and now it is not far from double-platinum status with "Bright Lights" rising!

Uncle Kracker's album, meanwhile, would certainly be a flop. It got certified gold because of "Drift Away", but he is not yet a staple artist and had he released "Drift Away" first, he would more likely have an album with sales between 750,000-1,000,000.

One album I think could have been selling better now is Sting's "Sacred Love" had he released the duet with Mary J. Blige first instead of "Send Your Love". That duet has so much hit potential like "Desert Rose" did. It's still selling well enough, nevertheless.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

[irice22]

I think, especially for new artists, the debut single should introduce the artist or album to the world with a catchy tune or something to the world. It won't exactly be their biggest hit, but sometimes I think a second single wouldn't be a hit if it was released first. For example, "All You Wanted" clearly did better than "Everywhere," but I don't think "All You Wanted" should have been her first single, even though I think it is a much better song. I don't think it would have been as big without her being introduced with such a song like "Everywhere."

[halo19]

I think it depends. Nobody would've wanted the albums from The Ataris or Counting Crows as much because those would have both had covers released. "Sour Girl" would've probably done similar to "Down", because their record label tried to only minimally support No. 4 during the time Scott Weiland was in jail.
Jagged Little Pill sold over 16 million copies, right? That seems good enough.
"Unwell" isn't as moving as "Disease", so I get how it was promoted.
That's just what I think of the ones you mentioned.

[j]

SingingSparrow said:

I think at least matchbox twenty's album is selling pretty well, considering it has sold 27,000+ copies a week for months now. Its sales are steady and now it is not far from double-platinum status with "Bright Lights" rising!

Nonetheless, it's still a far cry from the "Yourself Or Someone Like You" days.

[halo19]

j said:

Nonetheless, it's still a far cry from the "Yourself Or Someone Like You" days.

And that is the most frequently accessed CD in used bins, at least from what I hear

www.pitchfork.com/features/castoffs-and-cutouts/

[singingsparrow]

j said:

Nonetheless, it's still a far cry from the "Yourself Or Someone Like You" days.

True, but no album has been certified 12X platinum domestically this year, or the last few years even. And barely any albums have sold 7.7 million copies the past few years, with "Hybrid Theory", "The Eminem Show" and "Come Away With Me" being a few exceptions. Heck, "Stripped" and "Justified" have spawned so many huge hits but they've only sold about a million more than "More Than You Think You Are" each.

And when comparing to "Mad Season", which went quadruple-platinum and sold 3.77 million, MTYTYA is going on 2 million in sales domestically and that is quite healthy for a rock band nowadays. If the music industry was still as strong as it was in 1997, they'd probably be selling a lot more for MTYTYA right now.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

[arebomb]

SingingSparrow said:

If the music industry was still as strong as it was in 1997, they'd probably be selling a lot more for MTYTYA right now.

I agree wholeheartedly, for a band like matchbox twenty to sell near two million albums in the current atmosphere is impressive, wouldn't everyone agree? Honestly, look at 50 Cent, easily the biggest artist of the year and his album is sitting at 5x platinum right now (although it has to be fairly close to 6x). It's so frustrating for people to look at an album as a failure because it didn't sell as much as their last one.

Had matchbox twenty gone from having a 12x platinum to the very next album being gold or something, that would be a failure...But to be going strong near 2x platinum in the current commercial music atmosphere you have to be estatic, IMO.

[halo19]

You people do make a good point. You also have to think, whenever MB20's first album was out for a year, it may not have sold as much as it has now. They had the pop crossover "Push" as a big hit, and "3 A.M." hadn't yet made a big impact there, although it was played on the rock formats.

[EvanJ]

Well this album's second year won't sell as much as "Yourself Or Someone Like You."

[halo19]

Well, many forget that it was released in 1996, whenever they had their first rock/active rock hit with "Long Day". So it depends on how much MOSLY sold in 1997, as far as second year goes. However, it won't sell nearly that many copies, but will sell more than the predecessor, 'Mad Season'

[britrocks16]

Britney-In The Zone could have sold much more if Toxic was the first single.
Christina-Stripped would have sold alot more if Beautiful was the first single.
Justin-Justified, if Cry me a river was the first single....
Avril-Under My Skin would have sold over 3 million by now if My Happy Ending was released first.
Jessica-In This Skin, if With You was released first they wouldn't have had to re-release it.

[bluenote]

EvanJ said:

TLC: "CrazySexyCool": Would it have sold more if "Waterfalls" was the first single?

Nope. The single timing for that album was perfect. It wouldnt have had the same effect if "waterfalls" was the first single. People had 2 big singles before "waterfalls" that allowed people to really get back into TLC again. 2 successful singles off "crazy, sexy, cool" were released, and they were becoming bigger, and bigger. "waterfalls" appealed to a even wider audience and pushed them over even more.

[bluenote]

Britrocks16 said:

Britney-In The Zone could have sold much more if Toxic was the first single.

Yup.

[britrocks16]

GetRightDown said:

Yup.

Yeah, the album sold 609k in the first week with MATM, just imagine how much it could have sold if Toxic was the out at the time. I think sales could have topped 800k in the first week.

[MoreAdventurous]

Am I the only one who thinks that having a bigger second or third single is better? I mean, it gives the album a longer lifespan.

If Avril had released "My Happy Ending" first, sure she probably would've gotten a better first week (not that hers was anything to be ashamed about), but the album would slowly drop off into nothing.

I'd rather have a solid first single with decent sales and then a huge single rather than having a huge week and then two flop singles and obscurity.

Do you think anyone would've actually liked "Me Against The Music" or "Don't Tell Me" if they hadnt been the first single of much anticipated releases? Those are pretty mediocre songs if you ask me.

[britrocks16]

Garbage said:

Am I the only one who thinks that having a bigger second or third single is better? I mean, it gives the album a longer lifespan.

If Avril had released "My Happy Ending" first, sure she probably would've gotten a better first week (not that hers was anything to be ashamed about), but the album would slowly drop off into nothing.

I'd rather have a solid first single with decent sales and then a huge single rather than having a huge week and then two flop singles and obscurity.

Do you think anyone would've actually liked "Me Against The Music" or "Don't Tell Me" if they hadnt been the first single of much anticipated releases? Those are pretty mediocre songs if you ask me.

Look at what happened to ITZ, it dropped out of the charts when Everytime had just peaked, if Toxic was the first single ITZ would have sold much more for the first 2 months. Then with MATM there would have been alot of buzz again because of the kiss between Madonna and Britney. And MHE really didn't help Avril to much, she never made it back into the top 10.

[automyskin89]

Jessica Simpson - "With You" (From "In This Skin")
Lindsay Lohan - "Speak" (totally different than from "Rumors" so it would do better or worse)

[Night Senses]

Garbage said:

Am I the only one who thinks that having a bigger second or third single is better? I mean, it gives the album a longer lifespan.

I think it depends on what the first single is. If the first single is GREAT and the second single is even BETTER, then yes, I agree.

But if the first single is awful and they've declined to release one of the better tracks, that's not good. The first two singles just have to be good.

[babyboylrtm]

LoveAngelMusicLady said:

I think it depends on what the first single is. If the first single is GREAT and the second single is even BETTER, then yes, I agree.

But if the first single is awful and they've declined to release one of the better tracks, that's not good. The first two singles just have to be good.

Totally agree

[bluenote]

LoveAngelMusicLady said:

I think it depends on what the first single is. If the first single is GREAT and the second single is even BETTER, then yes, I agree.

But if the first single is awful and they've declined to release one of the better tracks, that's not good. The first two singles just have to be good.

Right. and thats what worked for TLC.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

TDisagree with 'Stripped' but I've explained countless times why.

I think now labels pretty much push a "shocker" song as the first single but really focus on single #2 as the album's true selling point. Especially for comeback albums or sophomore albums. Especially since second singles are released much closer to the release date of the album than they used to be.

[Ironically Ironic]

Look at Macy Gray. Her 1st single from her debut album was dumb and didnt get any attention. But when I Try came out, she sold 4 million albums soon after and a grammy nom.

Also Ja Rule with Livin It Up. A dumb 1st single. But Always on Time as the 2nd single helped the album grow immensely.

I think the 2nd single does help. Not the third, but the 2nd.

[Pink Champagne Ricochet]

"Rumors" was a total analomy from the rest of the material on Lindsay Lohan's album. I'm thinking if one of the other songs was released first (like "Speak" or even "Over" first), it would've had the album doing better.

"Emotional" was a horrible single choice for Diana DeGarmo's Blue Skies. I like the song, but I dunno what the hell they were thinking with that one. She probably won't get a second single, but either "Cardboard Castles" or "Then I Woke Up" might've worked better as a debut release.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

The said:

TDisagree with 'Stripped' but I've explained countless times why.

I think now labels pretty much push a "shocker" song as the first single but really focus on single #2 as the album's true selling point. Especially for comeback albums or sophomore albums. Especially since second singles are released much closer to the release date of the album than they used to be.

They have been doing that alot nowadays. They release a song thats not the strongest song but is enough to build up hype then release the better singles later on. This happens alot nowadays becuase many times an album can sell on the hype alone in the beginning. If the second single is good then the album will continue to sell.

[Purple Dreams]

arebomb said:

I agree wholeheartedly, for a band like matchbox twenty to sell near two million albums in the current atmosphere is impressive, wouldn't everyone agree?  Honestly, look at 50 Cent, easily the biggest artist of the year and his album is sitting at 5x platinum right now (although it has to be fairly close to 6x).  It's so frustrating for people to look at an album as a failure because it didn't sell as much as their last one.

50 Cent's debut is 7x platinum.

[britrocks16]

solitude said:

50 Cent's debut is 7x platinum.

Its still 6x platinum, although it should be 7x platinum.

[Purple Dreams]

Britrocks16 said:

Its still 6x platinum, although it should be 7x platinum.

My bad. I thought it was 7x platinum because a recent Billboard article stated it had scanned 7.1 million copies.