Up until the very early 80’s, most bands released an album once a year-year and a half. Look at the dates BREAD released their albums. One year they released 2 withing 10 months http://www.mid-tn.com/bread/albums.htm
Now days an artist can go 2,3, even 4 years or more without a new release, and still remain successful. How & why did this change come about in that industry?
Just a WAG, but artists didn’t use to have as much control as they do now. In the past their record companies tended to pretty much own them and could require them to release (say) one album a year. Nowadays no artist will sign a contract that gives the record company that much power.
I think you’re only half right. New bands, though, will sell their soul to get a record deal, and I imagine they give up tons of control.
http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html
Badly worded on my part, I was speaking mainly of the already-successful bands when they get a new contract or renegotiate the old one - precisely the type of band that might go a few years in between albums.
Heck, back in the 1960s, artists would release new albums every 8-10 months.
What’s changed? The marketing is one major factor. The old attitude was pretty much “throw it out there and see if it sells.” These days, there’s a huge marketing machine behind a major artist. The marketing machine puts together a comprehensive package for each release that includes promotions, TV shows, a mega-tour, etc.
The marketing machine is interesting in wringing every last drop of revenue out of a release. So far as they’re concerned, too many releases too close together is a bad thing. The new release may step on the toes of the previous release–“Why record a new album when the old one is still selling?”–and any time the band spends in the studio is time they aren’t out their flogging their wares to the public.
Aside from the other (accurate) points already given, there’s also the difference in record lengths. In the sixties, lots of records were about 30 minutes long - some longer and some shorter, but an average record would have been about 35 minutes.
Nowadays, with CDs being able to be up to 80 minutes (more or less), bands often feel they have to fill in all the time on a CD. Lots of 90’s records are close to an hour long. Seeing as CDs can have as much music as two records, half as many CDs are released as records (or something like that).
Also, recording in the sixties used at the most 8 tracks, and recordings nowadays can have many many more (I don’t know exactly how many - I think some computer recording ‘mixing desks’ use about 72 tracks). This means it’s harder just to knock out a record in an afternoon, as a number of sixties records were recorded.
I don’t know if I buy the CD length theory. All that’s happened is that the material that in the old days used to go on B-sides or just plain unreleased is now put on the CD. So instead of 45 minutes of good stuff on a vinyl album, you get 45 minutes of good stuff plus 20 minutes of filler on a CD.
(You also see songs that would have been 3:30 back in the LP era padded out to 5:00 or more, usually to no great effect.)
Another factor is touring. In the 1960s and 1970s, bands would tour, play concerts, etc. all the time. They fit recording in when they could.
Today, however, in the case of MAJOR acts, touring is something of an industrial enterprise. A band like U2 might tour for a year in 50 countries. Throw in the time taken to make the album and market it properly, and 2-3 years is the absolute minimum you’d need. And when you’re U2, or REM, or Pearl Jam or whoever, frankly, why rush back to work?
I agree (sort of). I didn’t mean that there was twice as much worthwhile music on new CDs versus old LPs. It’s just that the extra, filler music still costs lots of money to record, as well as time, so the overall project costs much more, needs to be promoted for longer to get the money back, etc. The same applies to the more complex recordings which I outlined in my earlier posts.
On the other hand, there’s always been filler on records, and older records often included previous singles, etc (just check out the early US Beatles records). When you think about it, modern ‘singles’ are usually far longer than old style singles, which only had one track per side. Nowadays, most singles have multiple ‘extra tracks’, and while it’s sometimes difficult to tell the difference in quality between extra ‘singles’ tracks, and standard ‘album’ tracks, most artists try to make their records complete, conceptual wholes (not counting throwaway pop music, where the singers have no input into their own albums).
There’s also the question of what happens when a band releases lots of records. Last year, Pearl Jam released something like eighty records, and many people criticised them for overdoing it. Of course, if there’s a market for anything, supply steps in to fill demand, even if it’s a blatant rip off, such as the same record being re-released with a ‘bonus disc’ featuring a few extra songs.