Talk:Single (music)

Promo singles

For the UK at least, this section is inaccurate - promos are usually released to individuals and organisations deemed 'influential' by the labels/PR companies in order to be played on the radio, DJs to include the song in nightclub playlists, journalists to review the release, etc. To mention just rap artists and Keane is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.140.47 (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention

Where does the naming convention for music and films come from to capitalize all words but a, the and a few other words? --Abdull 19:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Presumably it's an extension of the style commonly used in English for titles of books, articles, etc. According to Capitalization#Headings_and_publication_titles, it came about as an old form of emphasis for titles, "similar to the more modern practice of using a larger or boldface font for titles." If you want more info than that, you'd probably be better off asking at Talk:Capitalization--Severinus 05:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ordering of Formats

I have re-ordered the text regarding the different formats. It's now in chronological order (in terms of when the general public began to embrace them). I've also re-worded it - it was vinyl that gave us the terms "A-side" and "B-side", so why explain that in the "CD" section? --ThomasBisset 00:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

b/w & c/w

Should there be a mention/explanation of the "b/w" (backed with) and the less common "c/w" (coupled or combined with) notation used when listing songs on a single? I get the feeling they're only ever used when referring to vinyl singles, but I'm not at all in the know and was wondering if such info should go in the general part of the article. Thoughts? --Severinus 06:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Cassette single: Third opinion from interested parties

Hi there,
Would be grateful if anyone interested could please take a brief look at this dispute on cassette singles, and provide your opinion. Thanks. Fourohfour 17:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. I've moved Single (disambiguation back to Single, so there's no need for a separate move request for that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Single (music) → Single — "Single" is used in this sense in more than two thirds of incoming wikilinks, so this sense should "own" the article title, and all other meanings will go through disambiguation. YechielMan 00:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose It is clear that there are many other uses for Single. You alse shouldn't have moved the Single page first, that is something that should have been done IF this move request works. TJ Spyke 03:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose - 2/3 isn't enough, IMHO. If it was 99.9%, I could see moving it, but as it stands, there are too many other things single means. Kolindigo 19:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Too common a word. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose, it is probably just because the link to single is in Wikiproject Music's infobox templates. This is not the primary usage of the term, if there even is one. Recury 16:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose, we're judging disambiguation pages by incoming wikilinks now? O...K... Also, Single (disambiguation? Why didn't you close the parentheses? And... ohhh, great, someone's restored the content on Single manually, so now we need to do requested move to undo this. Fantastic. --DeLarge 16:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose , Keep it as it is - Single is a word with multiple meanings, this is just one of them.Jud 12:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose while wiki-links are a valuable indicator of primary usage, the Music template artificially inflates the number and lessen's it reliability. Also, the cumulative sum of the notability and relative importance of the other uses would make it difficult to establish any single primary usage. 205.157.110.11 02:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

History

I've added a couple of pars to the beginning of the history section -- I'd appreciate any comments on this.

Dunks (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Relationship to albums

The article emphasis the single's role as usually being extracted from a current or upcoming album to promote the album. Is this true? Surely singles were invented before albums and continued to have an independent existence. In the 50s and 60s, a lot of people (certainly in the UK) bought singles, but couldn't afford albums, so they represented a different market. Bands like The Beatles released different material for the singles market than they put on albums. Radio DJs for many years only played singles. Bluewave (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

agree, this lead paragraph should be reworded. riffic (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

single/song

When I am writing an article, how do I decipher whether it is a single or just a song. ex: (infobox single or infobox song) Can any song be considered a single? Song example: Song For A Winter's Night; it wasn't included in the singles section of Gordon Lightfoot's discography, so I didn't count it as a single. However, I have see other discographies where all thir songs seem to be included in the singles section of the discography. Ex: Ernest Tubb discography. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

singles are a type of release. if a song hasn't been released as (part of) a single it shouldn't be called one. riffic (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

tracks

In music, a single or record single is a type of release, typically a short recording of one or more separate tracks.

Does the phrase "of one or more separate tracks" contribute anything to the meaning of this sentence? —Tamfang (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Changing that to "one or two" is too explicit, as a single (see Maxi single) could theoretically contain more than 2 tracks. riffic (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that word typically. —Tamfang (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

. 41.122.77.96 (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll rephrase the question, in hope of provoking replies to the one that I'm asking: How might a recording not consist of one or more separate tracks? —Tamfang (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional citations

Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sentence needs work, starting point for a solution provided

"These factors, combined with the 10-inch songwriters and performers increasingly tailored their output to fit the new medium."

That sentence doesn't make much sense to me.. it doesn't seem to me to be grammatically correct and I'm not exactly sure what meaning it was trying to convey, although I have guesses. Also, I notice the next sentence launches into talking about "The 3 minute single". I think it should be mentioned somewhere before that sentence that a single was 3 minutes, rather than assuming the reader already understood that as common knowledge. Perhaps that sentence could be reworked into something like: "The rotation speed, combined with a 10-inch disc, resulted in a playback time of 3 minutes. As a result, songwriters and performers increasingly tailored their output to fit the new medium." (Note: I don't know if the playback time was exactly 3 minutes or only approximately 3 minutes, I'm just going off what the article already says.) --72.211.147.156 (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Discs versus cylinders

The beginning of the history of the single claims that discs started overtaking cylinders in the late 19th century. Tim Brooks book "The Columbia Master Book Discography, Volume 1, published by Greenwood Press, has at the bottom of page 14 a list of the number of cylinders and discs produced(in millions)in the United States. In 1909 18.6 million cylinders and 8.6 million discs were produced nationwide. The next listing is from 1914 where 3.9 million cylinders are said to have been produced and 23.3 million discs. So, in manufacturing, discs didn't "take over" any earlier then 1910. Johnbasalla (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The current meaning of being a "single"

As best I can tell, since digital downloads have became prevalent, every track on an album has become a "single", in the sense of being available in the marketplace as a separate published item. And I assume that radio stations (whether radio wave based or "Internet radio" based) can pick any published track they want to pick when choosing what to play – they aren't forced to choose the "single", are they? Yet, I still see references to which songs are considered a "single" on newly released albums. (Probably, I should put quote marks around "album" too.) Does it really mean anything anymore for a song to be a "single"? If so, exactly what does it mean? The article does not seem to provide this information. It seems to talk mostly about vinyl records, which is not how most people get their music anymore. Is a "single" something that is always made available on vinyl? Is a "single" something that is always made available as a separate published item on a physical format (e.g., on vinyl or CD format)? What the heck is a "single"? Does the concept still really exist? —BarrelProof (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Singles are released in digital format as well. Look through the iTunes catalog of an artist. If they have released a song as an actual single, it will be listed in their album catalog.

Another variant to singles is songs that are released for streaming or free download, but are not listed as stand-alone singles by vendors such as iTunes or Amazon. I used to think that these were singles, and the are often called singles by the media, but I've learned through some of my edits being reverted that these releases are not technically singles. Would these types of releases be buzz singles?--¿3family6 _contribs 23:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete and unsupported

This article has some problems. For example: The introduction indicates that singles are primarily related to albums as hooks etc. I don't know if this is correct or not, but in the early sixties, I was pretty much unaware of albums but was inundated with singles on 45s. Were most of the hits back then really even on albums at the time they came out? More recently, as commented by some-one else on this comment page, online singles are frequently unrelated to other songs: just singles. A second issue is that I cannot find any-thing about one-side shellac disks. Some-time in the early 20th century, these were common - maybe the first shellac singles were all one-sided. Some-one knowledgeable in the history of recording should fix up this page. Kdammers (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

DVD Singles Examples

I removed the Australian segment on DVD singles because it was vague and only referred to cartoons, not music.

I'm in favour of removing the other example-by-country lists for the UK and the US as well, expanding the segment on their prevalence in Japan. The lists as they stand are poorly cited, and just generally pretty unhelpful. If anyone wants to make a serious go at it, I think they should be shifted to a dedicated List of DVD Music Singles, but left off this page. - MVHVTMV (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Problem with lead image

The lead image says "45rpm single waiting to be played". Aside from the fact that it may have just been played and is waiting to be removed, the biggest issue is that the picture depicts and Extended Play 45, not a single. Is there a similar picture that can be used? If not, I can create one that shows a true 45rpm single. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixes Regarding Information

We added a few sections in a few categories to make the information more expansive. We found the introduction to be a little bit vague, so Kac static added more declaratory info regarding what a single is, and briefly describing how it has changed. Listihe also added a subsection under the "culture" section, for the same reasons. We made sure to add references and included internal Wikipedia links as well. Tabarak 57 (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The Music Video section in this article is good but there is opinionated content in the beginning that could be switched up for another research source but everything else was knowledgeable and entertaining to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torres.stephaniem824 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Ta(l)king Sides

A side, B-side, yes that's the norm. But in the glory days of vinyl there were double-A side singles (AA) where the radio was expected to play both side more or less equally (typically so one side could be played on one show and the other side of the following show), although they often favoured one side over the other. The response to this was the AA-A single where both sides were encouraged for radio play but the 'AA' side was meant to be given preference. Not sure if the radio stations ever took this too seriously. Of course plenty of records like Magic Roundabout/Funky Moped by Japser Carrott where the a-side was banned so the rather feeble b-side got the airplay to the confusion of many a listener. Stub Mandrel (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Change of lead section

Following this Wikiproject Music discussion and the numerous discussions on this talk page about the lack of this article defining that the term "single" has two, closely-related and confusing definitions, I have significantly changed the lead section.

This rewrite aims to cover these definitions of a "music single":

1. The release type, "single". Also known as a "single album" or "physical single", or "pre-release single". A single is a release that contains 1-3 songs. It can contain an A and B-sides. Some of the tracks, always the A-side but sometimes the B-side too, may considered a "single" as-in the second definition (depending if it meets the requirements). These second definition "singles" are considered a "non-album single" if it never appears on an album or EP.. This is the "original definition" of a "music single". Singles, as in this definition, used to always be released physically before they were ever incorporated on an album. Now, singles have transitioned to include the second definition. Music streaming services like Spotify, Apple Music, Youtube Music, and others have continued to only distinguish singles of this definition and not the second for discography consistency and release accuracy.
2. The individual track or song type, "single". Also known as a "digital single", "album single", "lead single", "title track", or others. However, these terms also have more-specific definitions and requirements that pertain to how and when the single was released. All are considered a "single" though. A single is usually the promoted song(s) on an album or the song(s) that reach the highest popularity. "Promoted" can be defined as a music video being created for the song, the artist specifically stating it is a "single", or another defining characteristic. An album can have multiple singles. An album like Lilac has the pre-release single (as in the first definition) Celebrity (IU song), the title track single "Lilac", and the singles "Coin" and "Epilogue". All four songs also meet this of single. Basically, this definition can be used for all song singles and therefore defines what songs currently make up the singles list of an artist's discography on Wikipedia.

Why we need the second definition

• I and Wikipedians in the past have gotten confused when looking at Template:Infobox song or Template:Infobox album and seeing "Single", clicking on the definition which links to this page, and finding that it only covers the first definition when the song marked with single is actually a single as in the second definition. Even more confusion is fostered when you look at artist Singles discography lists. This confusion is clearly present in discussions above on this talk page.
• The music industry and music publications have used this definition of single as the music industry since the coming of the digital music age when the promotion and usage of singles of the second definition became extremely commonplace. Look up any artist and a name of one of their singles of the second definition and you'll see that music publications always call them singles.

Lectrician1 (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 February 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jhc2675.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Single being considered "song"

@AlanM1 could you please add a reputable source for this statement?

> "while a "single" is only a song itself, typically a digital stream or download."

I believe that a single is not a song even in the context of South Korea. The calling of a song a "single" is a trend started by Western music publications like NME covering South Korean music who have replaced the terminology "title track" with "single" as a South Korean "title track" would typically be released on an actual single release in the West. However, because title tracks typically are not released on a single and only released on their album in South Korea, music publications have just resorted calling "title tracks" "singles". Please see my topic above on the confusion of the release definition and the nonexistant/confusing/improper definition of the song definition of single.

In reality we should be calling South Korean "singles", "title tracks", as they are supposed to be called. Lectrician1 (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

IDK looking at my previous revision that tried to explain the song definition of "single" got reverted by @Princess Faye, I tried doing the exact same thing as you did AlanM1. It's a trend in the music publication sphere and because Wikipedia sources from these publications it has become a trend here. However, it's not documented anywhere so that's why I wasn't to find any sources on it Princess Faye. It's just a "trend" that's 100% necessary to describe, however there's no sources that cover it... It's such a frustrating situation.

So moving forward we either need to somehow include the song definition of "single" in order to explain the huge mess of conflating a release single with a "song single" KPOP Wikipedia has made, or we need to change all of the "singles" that are actually just songs (title tracks) to songs. That would require changing hundreds of KPOP single and discography pages so I don't think that will happen any time. It's much better just to explain what a song-type single is on this page.

Personally I would love to change all of those song-type KPOP single pages to songs, but some KPOP editors might not like that because they've become so accustomed to the song-type single definition. Lectrician1 (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lectrician1: At [1], I did some copy-editing with the summary "→‎In South Korea: Combine first two duplicative paragraphs. Still needs simplification – way too long and duplicative." I wasn't the source of the statement and it's really not a field I have knowledge about – I was just doing some copy-editing, hopefully without changing the meaning. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 15:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Then it would be @Blz 2049 who did it. Can you please respond to the original message Blz 2049? Lectrician1 (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)