We've all witnessed Jessie J suffer something of a second album slump, and similarly we've witnessed Cheryl Cole go from the queen of British pop to... someone who scrapes Gold certification albums. However, we're currently seeing the return of Lily Allen, someone whose debut was released over seven years ago (and who many expected to have no longevity in the first place), return to the summit of the chart again. What is the key to her continued success (and that of other artists who've stuck around), and what is it that resulted in similarly massive artists in their time dropping off? There are infinite other examples of popstars / bands who burned out while others kept going, seemingly with no great effort.

 

Is it just a case of taking opportunities at the right time (see: the John Lewis ad) or are there other factors that differentiate people who become chart mainstays and those who don't? Arguably Cheryl's failing was overexposure, but it strikes me as difficult to find a balance between being overexposed and just exposed enough to be remembered. I'd probably say it's simply a case of having enough of a niche to build up a solid album-buying fanbase but then you get the Sound of 20XX acts who very rarely do anything after their second album or so despite generally being rather unique (who remembers Corinne Bailey Rae?). So help me out - what is it that allows the lucky few to live in the charts beyond album #2?

 

Great songs that mean something and connect with people. Just look at Lily Allen, Coldplay, Adele, Snow Patrol and Ellie Goulding to a lesser extent who didn't suffer the second album slump!

 

Some bands can define a period of time where they either try to recreate the past glories they once had or are just pigeonholed in that period of time to explain the failure of their second album. The Klaxons come instantly to mind.

Edited November 14, 201311 yr by Tommy G

Luck pretty much... and quality/credibility/merit/whatever the term I suppose. Strong/loyal fan following is also a good measurement.

 

We cannot predict what will still do well and what won't. We can just hope the acts are still interesting when they come back with new music or something.

Edited November 14, 201311 yr by FM11

I think it's often down to the choices they make with their singles, I mean if Lily had not come back with something as strong as 'The Fear' in 2009 she may be in a lesser position now. Plus I think being in the background since then with the occasional collaboration has helped keep her name out there and relevant, kind of in the same way Justin Timberlake did.

Yeah definitely down to the material and what time/type of release strategy/promotional campaign it receives. Lily has only had 2 albums so far, so I don't think it's really fair to say she's "had longevity" in the same way as, Rihanna has for example.

 

So I'd say release date is key to success too. Justin is in the same boat as Lily really. For example, he comes back with a huge album this year, but his second part hasn't even done a third of what the first part did WW. So I think too much at one time can ruin you, hence why Rihanna always seems to flop with pre-album singles lately/messy release strategies. It helps that Lily's last album was 4/5 (by the time it's release) years ago. So she's got demand and got the hype going, just like Justin did for 'Suit & Tie' and his album release.

i really think release strategies have f*** all to do with it tbh. if you make good, on point songs then you're gonna be successful, it;s as simple as that.

That's all subjective though, and it's not always proven to be the case...

Some bands can define a period of time where they either try to recreate the past glories they once had or are just pigeonholed in that period of time to explain the failure of their second album. The Klaxons come instantly to mind.

This is definitely a good point, it has a lot to do with the sound you're making at a particular time and how that sound's place in the charts changes over the course of your career. You really have to evolve to suit the changing trends and I don't mean by chasing them, but by ensuring you're probably a little bit different while at the same time not doing something that is "so five years ago", if that makes sense?

 

I think it's often down to the choices they make with their singles, I mean if Lily had not come back with something as strong as 'The Fear' in 2009 she may be in a lesser position now. Plus I think being in the background since then with the occasional collaboration has helped keep her name out there and relevant, kind of in the same way Justin Timberlake did.

How did I know you'd bring up single choices :lol: Definitely valid, for example look at how Pixie Lott's career went after 'What Do You Take Me For?' was chosen. Also remaining somewhat of a name was probably proven to be important by the differing fortunes of Nelly Furtado and Justin Timberlake upon their comebacks. One of them remained a household name, the other... didn't.

 

So I'd say release date is key to success too. Justin is in the same boat as Lily really. For example, he comes back with a huge album this year, but his second part hasn't even done a third of what the first part did WW. So I think too much at one time can ruin you, hence why Rihanna always seems to flop with pre-album singles lately/messy release strategies. It helps that Lily's last album was 4/5 (by the time it's release) years ago. So she's got demand and got the hype going, just like Justin did for 'Suit & Tie' and his album release.

I think leaving a long time between albums arguably makes it more impressive to retain success - it only works if you can stay relevant during the break and that's difficult. There is a reason why Rihanna has released six albums in the same time Lily has released two. Justin I feel suffered more from simply not having many songs that sounded like hits on his album - 'Tunnel Vision' and 'Take Back The Night' bombing were hardly the products of overexposure considering they were only 3rd and (sort of) 4th singles.

 

i really think release strategies have f*** all to do with it tbh. if you make good, on point songs then you're gonna be successful, it;s as simple as that.

I agree, Jessie J circa 2011 was on point.

She was on point in the sense that she was exactly what the public in 2011 wanted. No mtter how bad we know she is, she was fresh and interesting to people's ears. Now she's kinda taken what she had and run with it without really payin attention to anythin around her and it's gone and bitten her in the ass.

 

I think I was writing that a lot with lily Allen in mind.. She comes back each time with a slightly maturer / relevant sound and writes songs about subjects that people want to talk about, and that's why she still manages to be so popular. She's very much on the same wavelength as the general public, something that Jessie j arguably also had on her side before, whereas now she's kinda alienating herself with songs nobody can connect with.

Loyal strong fanbase, nothing more

 

If Gaga or Bieber or 1D bought out an album in 5 years time of them farting in the bath it would be a best seller in the album chart simply because they have dedicated hardcore fanbases

 

Ones with less loyal fanbases fall by the wayside

I'd have to disagree. Artists with strong fanbases, like those 3, are constantly demanding more music to be made as quickly as possible. If they went away for 5 years the disgruntled fanbase would have moved on in that time, especially if they didn't adapt their sound in the interim.

 

Definitely with Chris on this one, you come back with songs that will get the public interested (for that point in time), they will buy them. If you continue in your own bubble and pay no attention to what is currently trending, you'll fall by the wayside. Yet chasing trends doesn't work either, it has to be a strong and confident comeback, not a 'follower' comeback.

It is relevance, though a large and loyal fanbase can definitely help- Madonna was very good at maintaining that throughout the vast changes of the 1990s and embraced dance ("Ray Of Light" working with William Orbit) when it was at it's commercial peak, after almost a decade of living off her image.

 

One of the best examples I can think of is Blondie. "Maria" stormed to #1 in 1999, over 18 years after they last had a Top 10 single.

Its easy to say that sticking to the same sound over and over will eventually bore the public and its often true (one that comes to mind atm is Katy B) but then you have artists such Sean Paul whose sound is barely different at all to what he was doing ten years ago and yet he's still getting big hits every now and again. Also I don't think Eminem's doing much different with his sound now to what he was doing a few years ago, yet he's still a force to be reckoned with. It's an interesting one - I guess it depends on how distinctive they are with their own sound.

 

Also in the current climate probably more so than ever, a song on an advert is quite a blessing in disguise these days.

Its easy to say that sticking to the same sound over and over will eventually bore the public and its often true (one that comes to mind atm is Katy B) but then you have artists such Sean Paul whose sound is barely different at all to what he was doing ten years ago and yet he's still getting big hits every now and again. Also I don't think Eminem's doing much different with his sound now to what he was doing a few years ago, yet he's still a force to be reckoned with. It's an interesting one - I guess it depends on how distinctive they are with their own sound.

 

Sean Paul is a bizarre one - though I would argue his sound has changed over the past 10 years, from more reggae and dance-hall to include more electropop influences since 2009 (as this became more popular). I don't think "Gimme The Light" would be a Top 10 hit in 2013, where it easily fits in to 2003-2006's urban period.

In this day and age radio aren't very forgiving if you suffer a flop single or begin to lose your way, they're very quick to drop a mainstream pop act and never touch them again if they put a foot wrong. This also explains why some acts are now failing.

This is a topic that has really bothered me over the past few years and I have to agree with Silver Rocket here. As soon as there is one mistake with the artist's career, they seem to instantly lose support now. In most cases, to have a successful career, ALL the decisions have to be spot on. I think that's why it's still incredibly lucky that The Saturdays are still going around because they've managed to overcome so many flops and still have success in the charts.

This is a topic that has really bothered me over the past few years and I have to agree with Silver Rocket here. As soon as there is one mistake with the artist's career, they seem to instantly lose support now. In most cases, to have a successful career, ALL the decisions have to be spot on. I think that's why it's still incredibly lucky that The Saturdays are still going around because they've managed to overcome so many flops and still have success in the charts.

 

Perhaps. But how do you account for acts that have flopped and have come back massive e.g. One Republic, Maroon 5 (sure there's a few others).

 

In this day and age I say relevance and public appearance is the key. Look at Katy Perry before she came massive.. she did the guest vocals on Timbaland and 3oh!3, which surely helped. Justin Timberlake used to do the same. Lilly Allen is barely out of the papers. Being in the public eye is massive these days.

They're different as they're not mainstream popstars in the same way all the other acts being discussed are.

They're different as they're not mainstream popstars in the same way all the other acts being discussed are.

 

Still pop music though.

 

The mainstream pop artists just need public support, building rapport, excellent material and media exposure. Being relevant is still key. Hence why they're massive icons, but Britney Spears, Madonna, Kylie really don't find much success anymore. They don't really connect with the core market who download music.