depends if they can think for about forty plus minutes about the same thing or what (of course this is even with the help of the other band members and producers and the roadie's ) usually the roadie is the one that keeps the band on track ., for the single songs since they can hold a conversation longer then the rest of them.

Both. That's like asking if painters should focus on portraits or landscapes. Whichever one they feel inspired to work on.

depends on how much they (the artist) has to say.

I think albums are pretty important.

The Beatles did both. A good example to follow in my book.

Albums define artists. not singles

Yes

Being single myself atm I guess I'm biased, but I wouldn't mind if a certain number of female artists put making albums on hold and instead focused their efforts on me and making me less single.

Most musicians seem to have a purpose driven desire moving foward independent of outcome. I don't think they
are " focusing " on singles, rather, the creation process itself.

There's a market for both, because there are large numbers of people who would prefer to listen to either a single or an album, so it largely depends on who the artist is targeting.

But when I speak of an "album," I'm really referring to - if not a "concept" album - at least a coherent effort that has some sort of unity and quality unto itself. What we DON'T need more of are "albums" that are really just three or four decent songs surrounded by 50-60 minutes of worthless crap. No one really WANTS to listen to that.

http://www.cracked.com/article_17075_every-album-ever.html

Albums. Other than quantity, the opportunity to get creative with a set of songs presents itself in album form.
Genesis' "Lamb Lies Down On Broadway" and the second side of the Beatles' "Abbey Road" are two great examples.

Albums - the more the merrier