In the 60s and 70s, as far as I can tell, musicians (rock musicians) had an album out every year or every other year. For example, the Beatles released 12 albums in 8 years. Nowadays, it’s commonplace for artists to wait as many as four or five years between albums. Why the change? When did it take place?
Don’t forget that albums have pretty much doubled in length…a single LP could total IIRC about 22mins either side, whereas people expect over 70mins on a CD.
Also, remember those old musicians were playing for their lives. Royalties from an album wouldn’t carry one very far.
Nowadays one major hit album, tour and mechandising will effectively set you up for life.
The record labels insisted on it. Tours back then (as they are now) were primarily promotional, and used to hype album sales.
In addition, the audience was fickle. The fear was that if a group that didn’t put out an album each year, people would forget about them. A steady stream of hits was thought to be required or else the audience would move on to the next big fad. Radio stations only played the current hits, so it was easy for a group to be forgotten.
CDs are longer than albums, which were usually around 35 minutes (Pink Floyd went to 45, and McCartney was criticized when his first solo album was around 24).
The roll of music in the 60s and 70s is different than it is today. Music was the force behind social change. Four students were shot at Kent State and Crosby Stills and Nash had “Four Dead in Ohio” on the radio in a matter of days. Musicians had something to say, and you could actually understand it.
Now tell me you really want two albums a year from Britney Spears?
The creative force that fed Album FM Radio has moved on. Much of it has been directed toward film, in particular independent film. And some to TV.
You can’t “wanna be a rock and roll star” anymore; because no one apparently plays rock and roll anymore. . .save the easy listening stations.