Don't expect Perfect Illusion to go #1

[HANZ 4,380]

yes it won't be number 1

it will peak at number 2 and slay the world like Bad Romance

[Bradley 59,023]

4 hours ago, Love Drought said:

I will never understand why people care for charts so much.  The only ones that benefit from it are Gaga herself as an "achievement" and fans that want to use it for petty stan wars - and when you make yourself feel good with someone's achievements and/or by dragging someone else's then I feel sorry for you.

erm, how? Like bigger budget for videos, longevity for the album spawns more singles, bigger chance at performing the song at award shows = support the song's visuals, etc.

[Saint Laurent 4,862]

I'm questioning whether the #1 actually makes a difference to its impact. Like if you asked anyone on the street 'Do you think Bad Romance went #1' everybody without knowing would say yes.

[uo111 5,261]

Lost me when you said it's not 2011 anymore. The year when she saw a massive decrease in popularity and huge backlash.

 

Your right, it's not 2011 anymore. She hasn't been this well recieved since 2009. If the single is good it will do well. It doesn't matter if it goes number 1, who even cares about billboard anymore? It matters if it has an impact, which closer definetely doesn't and won't.

[Addison Rae 16,606]

have a little faith in our girl guys sheesh 

[Manul 7,377]

30 minutes ago, Bradley Cooper said:

erm, how? Like bigger budget for videos, longevity for the album spawns more singles, bigger chance at performing the song at award shows = support the song's visuals, etc.

And how do the singles need to achieve #1 so the above can happen exactly?  Longevity in top 10 is a success, in top 5 even more so.

The #1 or flop mindset is negative.

[Bradley 59,023]

3 minutes ago, Love Drought said:

And how do the singles need to achieve #1 so the above can happen exactly?  Longevity in top 10 is a success, in top 5 even more so.

The #1 or flop mindset is negative.

It's not negative if you turn them into fuel. Of course a top 5 hit could equally be served with good videos and tour performances but we're talking about commercial success in general, the bigger it is, the better it is for the artist and fans to enjoy what's coming up next from the album.

Imagine if Shake it Off and Blank Space flopped, would 1989 have spawned seven singles, won all those Moonmen and have garnered position in all those promotional platforms Taylor had? Don't you think fans would derive happiness from these?

[Manul 7,377]

2 hours ago, Bradley Cooper said:

It's not negative if you turn them into fuel. Of course a top 5 hit could equally be served with good videos and tour performances but we're talking about commercial success in general, the bigger it is, the better it is for the artist and fans to enjoy what's coming up next from the album.

Imagine if Shake it Off and Blank Space flopped, would 1989 have spawned seven singles, won all those Moonmen and have garnered position in all those promotional platforms Taylor had? Don't you think fans would derive happiness from these?

Of course the bigger it is the better but I really don't think that results in better music videos, better promo slots, better tours etc. I tried to give some examples below.

I may be wrong and if so correct me, but pretty much all of TS's albums have had at least 5 singles regardless of commercial performance. As for 1989, Style didn't do too well and she still released BB. After BB the singles "underperformed" but she kept releasing new ones anyway.

About the other examples, Anti which was considered a success yet the videos look like they are on budget, the tour is a snoozefest, promo slots, has she even had any? Or Adele and 25, WWWY didn't even get a vid and SML's is garbage.

Compare those to AP and Artrave which "underperformed" and you have the videos, (which even though I disliked) look like they actually had some work put in them and the tour which was amazing.

All in all I think it depends from artist to artist really, there are albums that didn't perform great yet got many singles and videos, had great tours, amazing promo slots etc. Commercial performance matters but the most important thing is how dedicated the artist himself is to his work.

[Bradley 59,023]

9 hours ago, Love Drought said:

Of course the bigger it is the better but I really don't think that results in better music videos, better promo slots, better tours etc. I tried to give some examples below.

I may be wrong and if so correct me, but pretty much all of TS's albums have had at least 5 singles regardless of commercial performance. As for 1989, Style didn't do too well and she still released BB. After BB the singles "underperformed" but she kept releasing new ones anyway.

About the other examples, Anti which was considered a success yet the videos look like they are on budget, the tour is a snoozefest, promo slots, has she even had any? Or Adele and 25, WWWY didn't even get a vid and SML's is garbage.

Compare those to AP and Artrave which "underperformed" and you have the videos, (which even though I disliked) look like they actually had some work put in them and the tour which was amazing.

All in all I think it depends from artist to artist really, there are albums that didn't perform great yet got many singles and videos, had great tours, amazing promo slots etc. Commercial performance matters but the most important thing is how dedicated the artist himself is to his work.

Style did not affect the longevity of 1989 because of what? The success of the album itself and of the previous two singles and of course subsequently Bad Blood. This substantiates again that commercial performance does affect how many singles will be produced by the artist. If G.U.Y. had done well, I'm sure ARTPOP would have spawned a fourth or even fifth single. I'm not saying high budget = good quality, I'm saying because there's higher budget, the artist has more room and more choices in making videos and possibly develop expensive concepts for them.

It's just like business, why hasn't Fantastic Four decided to make a sequel yet? Because the first one received badly and it didn't gross well. Same goes to music. Ain't no label is going to invest in you if you perform terribly in commercial aspects. It's really not a difficult concept to comprehend.

Yes it depends on the artist, of course. I'm not saying commercial performance will definitely lead to good quality, I'm saying it opens a door for the artist to thrive artistically.