(Why) did the big names of classic rock release albums so frequently?

Wow; and I thought that Elton John – 9 albums (one a double album) from '70-'75 – was productive.

From what I remember from Albert Goldman’s hatchet job biography on John Lennon (he did do extensive research but just used the interesting bits that appealed to him), the Beatles were obligated to do two albums and four singles a year.Granted albums were shorter and less muscially complex, I think they recorded their first in an 11 hour session.

I also guess the royalties and amount of money you could make on touring was less then. I suppose the Beatles could play stadiums like Shea and Candlestick (although the latter, their last concert,drew only 30,000). But one reason why Bill Graham closed the Fillmore’s was artist were demanding more money and could get bigger venues if Bill didn’t pay.

I alsothink in the mid to late 1970s radio started playing more older music (ie. rock from the 60s.).Back in the 1960s they would seldom play fifties music. But I knew a lot of people my age that love Led Zep, The who etc but could not stand punk/new wave (I was more receptive). I suppose newer bands found it easier to get endorsements to pitch soda pop like Madonna and Michael jackson.

The Albert Goldman hatchet job biography on Lennon says the Beatles were obligated for 2 albums and 4 singles a year. It may have been re negotiated but remember in early days many Beatles singles weren’t on album (British though it was a ripoff to get a song on an album they had bought on a single,Americans thought it was a ripoff to buy an album and not have the hit single).

I think bands started to get more money from royalties, sales were probably higher
and concert venues got lsrger (i.e. Bill Graham closing down fillmore East and West because larger places could pay more to bands).

On a different note, did Wolfgang Mozart release the equivalent of 180 CDs by the time he died at age 37? Of course he was at the mercy of an aristocratic patron, as was Haydn, for much of his life.

Here’s one edition of Mozart’s complete works: 170 CDs. :eek:

(BTW - that’s age 35.)

Bach is close behind: 155 CDs. His output, at over 1000 compositions, is almost as whacky as Mozart’s. Of course, on one hand, he had a longer lifetime to do it in. On the other, unlike Mozart, he didn’t start at about the age of five, and in contrast to many prolific composers he also had to hold down a full time job most of his life (as organist or kapellmeister), as well as having a large family. It’s still a mystery to science when, if ever, Bach actually found time to eat or sleep.

(Haydn, apparently, is not far behind either - 150 CDs. Beethoven, however, squeezes onto [85](http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Complete-Works-85 CD-Box/dp/B000VBNRE4/ref=pd_sim_m_2). What a slacker! :p)

Why did Bach have so many children? His organ didn’t have any stops. <rimshot>

Two others that come to mind are the Sun City Girls and Boredoms. Granted, neither are anywhere near the average listener’s taste, but if we’re talking output, these 2 bands deserve mention.

I’ve been wanting for some time to do some extensive research into how many artists’ (those that write their own material, anyway) second albums include a song about life on the road. I mean, the first album will have a bunch of songs that were probably written over a span of a few years before the band was “discovered”, but then they need to come up with material for the second album in a much shorter span, so they’re looking for ideas, and, “Hey, let’s do a song about being on the road!”

The first two that came to mind were Making Memories from Rush’s second album, “Fly By Night”, and Three Doors Down’s *Here Without You**, also from a sophomore album. (And holy crap, I just looked up that 3DD album to verify it was their second album, and discovered that Rush’s Alex Lifeson produced three of the tracks. I did not know that.) Anyway, noticing those two songs made me wonder how many other artists have explored a similar theme with a song on their second album.

*The song seems to have since taken on a “soldier away from home” meaning, once the Iraq and Afghanistan wars got started, but since the album was released in 2002 I suspect that the song was probably written before 9/11 and we started sending troops over there. The line, “I’ve heard this life is overrated” seems more a reference to celebrity than to military life, in any case.

Elton John was criticized at the time for rushing out content. One album a year was expected, with two albums (or a double album) every couple of years. But by 1975, Elton was clearly burning out and his albums kept getting less and less interesting.

BTW, artists still make more money from album sales than the do from touring (except for the dozen top groups that can fill arenas). People spend far more money on recorded music than they do on concerts (look at the CDs you’ve bought. How many of them have you seen in concert? I’m guessing far less than half).

But concert tickets for established artists are vastly more expensive now. I probably only need to see shows for one out of every five artists in my collection, to be spending more on tickets than records.

"CCR. 6 albums in 2 years.

Wow; and I thought that Elton John – 9 albums (one a double album) from '70-'75 – was productive"

The Beatles released 17 US studio albums from '63 to 1970. Thee were numerous other releases in other markets including UK, Canada and Germany. Two original movies and am original television ‘movie’ too.

And I rise from the dead to respond:

Touring expenses are far more than recording expenses. Each venue takes as cut, and travel expenses can be astronomical, as well as the salaries of roadies.

While some acts do indeed make money from touring, those are the ones who sell out arenas. The act you’re seeing in your local small venue is barely breaking even, if that.

Plus, the math is not all that easy. Artists only see a tiny fraction of their record sales, whereas touring allows for a much more, umm, flexible business model.

I had a short chat with Guided by Voices’ “manager for life” before a show some 15 years ago. I had been intentionally holding off purchasing their new album so that I could buy it at the show. I expressed surprise when they weren’t selling it there. His reply was enlightening. I was informed that they got the same take from an album sold at a store as at the venue. They didn’t have the album there to encourage fans to buy t-shirts instead, since clothing (and other non-musical) sales were the way that smaller bands made money on tour. He suggested that I buy a t-shirt with the money I had allocated for the album, and then to head out the next day and buy the album at an indie record store.

This thread is only going to be released every two years.

Just to be a bit nitpicky, though, the US A Hard Day’s Night had only one Beatles track not on other albums, the US Help! contained only seven Beatles songs (the rest were instrumentals), and Yellow Submarine had only four Beatles songs not on other albums. So the unique Beatles material on those three LPs add up to about one full album.

You’re thinking of the 3 Doors Down song “When I’m Gone,” which has a military-themed video to match the lyrics. “Here Without You” was always an on the road song.

I know I’ve spent more on two Rush concerts (2004 and 2008) than I’ve spent on all of their studio albums combined. (Though to be fair, I bought two tickets for the 2004 show - I didn’t drive at the time so I bought the tickets and my friend provided the transportation.) And of course, TicketMaster and LiveNation got a big cut of those tickets.

I was thinking more of some after-the-fact live performances I saw of “Here Without You”. The context of the performances gave the impression (to me, at least) that they had “repurposed” the song.

This is because of the record label contract, after expenses ( recording, promotion etc) you get a fixed amount per unit, often cents. Not all contracts are this way but many are. Independent artists, like the ones I tour with, usually budget tours as a break even proposition, the gig fees pay for the tour expenses (crew, hotels, fuel etc) and merch is what makes money. Often newly signed artists lose tons of money on their first tours, management and/or label picks up the tab. One band I used to work for spent almost 1.5 million more than they made in 5 years, they will be paying that back for the rest of their lives most likely.

On the big star scale, the math is even worse. Not only do you get 9 to 11% of record sales, not store price but the labels cut +/- $2, out of that you pay all expenses for recording, promotion, merchandise etc. Don’t forget management gets 10-25% of everything you make off the top, the promoter gets a cut, even the venue sometimes. It gets better often the above mentioned parties take another cut of your merch as it is sold.

Why do you think Prince changed his name? To get out of his deal with Warner, they got their cut out of any Prince album made for x number of years so he put out albums with that symbol on them.

This is the reason that so many artists build their own labels as soon as they are able, it allows them to record what they want, how they want and make money off their work.

There is a ton more to all of this and if interested I will happily answer.

Capt

Tour Manager/ Front of House engineer/Mr. Fix it

I don’t think [n]FrankJBN** was even counting A Hard Day’s Night. The Capitol albums only, excluding The Beatles Story, add up to 17.

I need to apologize

I did not mean to hijack, which I did. I went off on a long diatribe about something somewhat unrelated

Sorry

Capt