Now that I think of that, I've never understood...

[Alvaro Martín Gómez A.]

...what's the point of releasing a single from an album after the full album has been released? It's perfectly clear that a first single released when the album hasn't seen the light works as a "sneak peek", but some albums have had up to seven singles released. Why would someone buy a single if he/she already has the album? No doubt that it's a marketing strategy, but I don't see its point. Your input on this is appreciated. Thank you in advance!

[StrangerDanger]

I dont think anybody buys albums or singles any more. They just get it free off the interwebs.

[butchblack]

It probably goes back to the old days before albums were big and radio stations played singles. The popularity of albums and the demise of 45's made that somewhat obsolete. However, the advent of digital storage and the easy ability to purchase and download only the songs you want may make the practice relevant again.

My opinion, YMMV

[Scourge441]

IMO it's mostly because people aren't buying full albums anymore. When the single comes out, they download it from iTunes and don't bother with the rest of the album. So if the record label/artist wants to see more money from it, they have to keep releasing singles so that people hear them and want to buy them.

[billjr]

But this idea of releasing singles after the album is released preceded online/digital music sales.

I always wondered about this, too. A band would release an album, but the only songs you heard on the radio were the singles that had been released. I remember comments in the paper (I'm from SC, so these are local boys) about why Hootie and the Blowfish released their second album before releasing a couple of more singles from their first album, and I couldn't figure out why wouldn't the stations just play the other songs from the first album anyway.

My guess was that it had something to do with copyrights what the stations were legally granted the right to play on air, and that those rights were from the record companies on a per single basis rather than a per album basis.

Whatever the reason, it probably is based on the old days of using radio to play singles to promote record/album sales.

[JimK]

Originally Posted by butchblack

It probably goes back to the old days before albums were big and radio stations played singles. The popularity of albums and the demise of 45's made that somewhat obsolete. However, the advent of digital storage and the easy ability to purchase and download only the songs you want may make the practice relevant again.

Agree on all points.

...and in The Beatles' case, early on, the singles didn't make any album, IIRC.

[DeluxeRed]

It has to do with releasing the rights to the song for airplay, as well as how the royalities are paid to the owner of the song's publishing rights. That is, you can release the single for airplay without releasing the entire album for such, and if the song is sold as a single (as opposed to a cut from the album), you don't have to split the royalities amongst all those who would receive compensation for the album's sales.

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by Alvaro Martín Gómez A.

...what's the point of releasing a single from an album after the full album has been released? It's perfectly clear that a first single released when the album hasn't seen the light works as a "sneak peek", but some albums have had up to seven singles released. Why would someone buy a single if he/she already has the album? No doubt that it's a marketing strategy, but I don't see its point. Your input on this is appreciated. Thank you in advance!

Just more money to be made. Singles often have B-side tracks that arent on the album, or remixes of said single. Some artists make a lot of money selling singles, Im sure, or else they wouldnt keep releasing them.

[JimK]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

Singles often have B-side tracks that arent on the album...

An early one-
Led Zep's "Immigrant Song"...B-side = "Hey Hey What Can I Do".