Wikipedia talk:Promotional singles

Comments
BIG, HUGE thumbs up on the "there are some things that do not make a song a single:

*Being played on the radio.
 * A music video.
 * An "iTunes countdown" single release.

While many singles do receive some or all of these, it does not verify that a song is a single."


 * Radio is promotion, sales is the release. Please feel free to review and comment to what I have said at WT:SINGLE—Iknow23 (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You want it removed, or you are praising it being including. I don't get it. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  03:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am praising all but the strikeout portion as not going far enough. I would include that having a radio add date does not make a song a single. Only sales release can do that.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Per consensus at WP:SONGS, a song being serviced to US radio makes it a single. In all other countries it doesn't matter, as far as I know. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  03:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link to the discussion and thank you.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs/Archive_4 -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  04:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Can to point to a specific area please. It is a rather lengthly discussion.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not clear
Both WP:PROMOSINGLE and WP:SINGLE? link to the same section. Yet, they are not the same thing. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just spotted this has recently been added. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A Few Comments...
This essay is almost completely false in nearly every way, shape and form. For starters, let's talk about the conditions that classify a music release as a single. The first point states that a music release should be classified as a single if it is "Serviced to US radio with an official radio add date". This is completely incorrect. This is actually what makes a music release a Promotional single. All radio releases, whether in the US or not (which, by the way, is Americanism at is shameful finest.), are promotional singles, and are the actual definition of a promotional single: a single serviced to radio for airplay to promote a single or song on an album. Proof? One such example where radio releases are promotional singles, other than the fact that it is the origin and definition of the name, is on the Wikipedia page for the promotional recording itself! On the page, one can find an image of a radio-only single that bears the words, "". This is proof that Radio singles are promotional singles. A more modern example would be a radio release of Rihanna's "Stay", which bears the instruction "For promotional use only - NOT FOR SALE" and a 7" radio release of will.i.am's "Scream & Shout", which also bears the instruction "For promotional use only".

The second point of this essay states that music release should be classified as a single is if it is "Distributed and sold by the label as a CD single or 7" or 12" single" This is incorrect because it makes the assumption that singles are only sold as a CD, a 7" or a 12", which is obviously not the case. Singles are sold in any format. What defines a single is that it is a music release that consists of one or more tracks that lasts the length of one side of a 7" single (typically 8 minutes) or two or more tracks that lasts the length of a 12" single (sometimes labelled a maxi single), and last, but certainly not least, it should be well noted that a single is generally a music release. A "commercial" release, if you will; a music release that can be bought and sold in the commercial market. This can be a CD, 7", 12", Digital download, Cassette, 4-track, 8-track, VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray; generally everything that can be used as a format to release a commercially viable single release.

The third and, in my opinion, the most false and criminally misleading point in this essay states that a music release should be classified as a single if it is "Promoted as a single and listed as a single in several publications". What is the golden rule of the Internet as we know it? Don't believe everything you read on the Internet (or any major publication as well). Anybody can say anything they want, especially magazines and websites that may not completely understand what a single actually is and labels and artists that promote songs as singles just to promote the song further, even if the song itself hasn't appeared on a single release at all! The thing is, in this day of age, not a lot of people understand what singles are, as the writer of this essay has perfectly demonstrated in such an oblique fashion. Anybody can write a song is being released as a single, even if there is only a radio release of that song or no release has been made at all. Take for example Contactmusic.com, which published an article stating that American rock band Thirty Seconds to Mars is releasing a new single: "Do or Die" on September 9, 2013. However, only a radio Promotional Single release occurred on that day, which proves my point that even professional culture news writers don't understand the difference between a Single and a Promotional single. Another fine example of a single-promo mix up in professional writing is Digital Spy's article on the "Stay" single, which stated that the single would be released on January 7, 2013. However, this is the date for the UK radio release of the "Stay" promotional single. A single release would not be released until February 15, 2013, where it would be released in Germany and Italy as a CD single. An example of how a major publication gives completely false information is Billboard and their article on Coldplay's "Princess of China". They stated in an article about Coldplay's music video for "Paradise", that Coldplay would release a new single, "Princess of China", on October 25, 2011. History has shown us that no release of any sort occurred on that day. Not even a promotional release. Although, coincidentally, a "Princess of China" single was released later in April 2012.

The fourth and final point that this essay states that a music release should be classified as a single if it is a "Digital release that is similar to the release of previous singles.". This is a very confusing point to make. I don't exactly know what the writer of this essay exactly meant by this statement. My interpretation of this point is that a digital download single should not be considered a single unless previous singles from the same artist were released on digital download as well. If this is the case, this is an outright appalling statement to make. This is like saying a CD single shouldn't be counted as a single if previous singles from the artist weren't released as CDs. They are singles, and the label of a music release has nothing to do whatsoever with other releases.

On the list of what this essay describes as points that do not make a music release a single are plausible enough. A music video and simply being played on the radio is definitely not a single release. However, the essay's statement that a music release should not be counted as a single if it is "An "iTunes countdown" single release". Why? It is a single released for digital download, and at a price as well! It's not released for free; why exactly is an iTunes Countdown single NOT a single? This essay should explain its reasoning behind statements like this.

What this essay should say in point form, other than an obvious expansion and elaboration of the essay itself, describing exactly why and how the criteria for a single and a promotional single in the essay is correct, it should be:


 * A single is a music release that is commercially sold, and can be released on any format.
 * A promotional single is a music release that is released promotionally and is not commercially sold, including singles released for free.

This is an accurate, yet conveniently short and simple outline on how singles and promotional singles should be defined as, especially on Wikipedia. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 08:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)