Do modern bands release fewer albums?

[SouthernTrendkill]

I'm pretty annoyed because it seems like bands these days will only release an album once every 2 years on average, and that's if we're lucky. I've been waiting for bands like Silvertide and Anna Nalick to come out with their next album for years and they don't do it even though they have more than enough material. I think it might have something to do with the beauracracy of the music industry.

Back in the 60s and 70s it seems like most popular bands released at least 1 album a year. It wasn't even remotely uncommon to have 2 new albums in one year.

Is my view of either era skewed? I want more new music from my favorite bands but it feels like people are just getting lazy and indulging themselves too much when they could be more focused and put out an ass-kicking album once a year.

 

[v2kv]

That's strange, almost every modern band I listen to releases an album every 2 years.

 

[razoredge]

well it depends ou how you look at it I guess. In the early years, like the 60's many of those bands were under contract to produce. Then it kinda depends on whether your talking commercial music or the more artistic bands. Then it depends on whether its the early part of their career or later on. Seems everyoine looses steam. When they start out their full of ideas, young and vital. Then after a few years of recording and constants touring they take time out and get a life and might even seek new means of expression. In the 70's I noticed the less mainsteam bands, that were no longer the latest news to start taking 2 years or more to record again. I think sometimes its like 6 months or so of writting and recording, followed by some tour of decent lenght, then a few months off for having a life and breathing. Then the process starts again and opur looking at 2 or more years to run that cycle.

You are also right in that their is an industry issue involved as well. The are only interested in whats the latest greatest thing and money maker.

 

[ShredHeadJHJ]

I think that now a days it's much harder for bands to "promote" their product. Music also doesn't make money like it used to so many bands/artists actually lose money from making albums these days. There are other ways they make their money back, like through touring, merchandise, & many of these guys now even have day jobs to keep money coming in. It's a bad time to make money through album sales. I don't think there were as many musicians back in the 90's even as there are now.

All that being said there are still a ton of bands that put out an album every year or two. A lot of these bands that have 12-15albums since 1990 are just really hard to keep track of anyways. Many bands go through far too drastic of stylistic changes to hold interst in large catalogs. There's plenty of music already out there to listen to. I think when you obsess over bands putting out new material you set yourself up for disappointment these days. You also have to take into consideration that there are literaly thousands more bands out there now as there were years ago.

I like it when bands release a great album every 2-4 years & take their time to make great music.

 

[mdmatt4ever]

i agree with what a lot of people already said in this thread.

-for starters tours didn't last 8 months-15 months for one album in the 60's and 70's.

-bands were almost forced to release some new product a year (new album, live album, greatest hits) in the 60's and 70's. contracts then were very strict about bands releasing albums. a lot of british bands would put songs that were non album singles on an album and then latter release an album of all the leftover songs. the rolling stones and the beatles were famous for this.

-finally back in the 60's and 70's bands made most of their money on album sales and not touring/merchandise. now bands probably don't break even a lot of albums they release so they choose to tour a lot instead of releasing an album all the time

 

[ProgMetalFan]

it's also important to note that today's albums are generally quite a bit longer than albums from the 70s... today many albums are in the 50-70 minute range... whereas in the 70s... most albums were 30-40 minutes

 

[Meanspark]

good reflection. I have many questions in mind...Do bands lack of talent? Is there too much bands out there? Is there enough money invested in new bands? Is there not enough or too much good labels? Are musicians working on a dayjob to survive? Are they well paid in 2008? Are mp3's killing music?

I could say yes to all these questions but its different from a band to another...

nice thread...

 

[SouthernTrendkill]

it's also important to note that today's albums are generally quite a bit longer than albums from the 70s... today many albums are in the 50-70 minute range... whereas in the 70s... most albums were 30-40 minutes

That's a very good point. I still come across 35 minute albums sometimes but most new albums are above 50 minutes.

I still think bands should be encouraged to release more albums though. See, I think a lot of the "filler" stuff that band might consider to be crap is actually a lot of their best stuff, because they'll be looser and might experiment more. But when bands release fewer albums, they might just throw that stuff away. Songs such as Smoke On The Water, Pinball Wizard, and Living on a Prayer were all considered throw-away tracks by their respective bands until the songs got famous, just to name a few famous examples. Even if it was a contractual obligation that made Bob Dylan release like 5 albums in the first 4 years of his career, I think it worked out damn well, don't you? They're all great albums.

And then there are bands like Silvertide, Regina Spektor and Anna Nalick who have 2 or 3 albums of viable new material and just don't make any albums. That irks me because I love those bands.

 

[mdmatt4ever]

it's also important to note that today's albums are generally quite a bit longer than albums from the 70s... today many albums are in the 50-70 minute range... whereas in the 70s... most albums were 30-40 minutes

i forgot to say that.