The industry is different these days...

happyman81

Is something I hear often when comparing today with the sixties. Back then, a band would release two albums a year, now it's every two years or more.

So, what exactly is the difference? Why has this gap appeared? The expectations of record companies have changed? Of bands?

MilanPan!c

happyman81 wrote: »

Is something I hear often when comparing today with the sixties. Back then, a band would release two albums a year, now it's every two years or more.

So, what exactly is the difference? Why has this gap appeared? The expectations of record companies have changed? Of bands?

That question is way too broad... almost every single thing has changed...

happyman81

MilanPan!c wrote: »

happyman81 wrote: »

Is something I hear often when comparing today with the sixties. Back then, a band would release two albums a year, now it's every two years or more.

So, what exactly is the difference? Why has this gap appeared? The expectations of record companies have changed? Of bands?

That question is way too broad... almost every single thing has changed...

Oddly, I hadn't planned on this being a one answer thread. This is a discussion forum right?

kunst nugget

MilanPan!c wrote: »

That question is way too broad...

Nothing girly about the question at all.

bullpost

Of Fans - namely free music.

happyman81 wrote: »

So, what exactly is the difference? Why has this gap appeared? The expectations of record companies have changed? Of bands?

Odaise Gaelach

Would it be that it's more common for bands to go on continental and world tours now than before?

smokedeels

happyman81 wrote: »

Is something I hear often when comparing today with the sixties. Back then, a band would release two albums a year, now it's every two years or more.

A lot of albums from good 60s bands are sadly full of covers/fillers.

If a band had a hit then an album would be rushed out, so filler or cover versions of songs would be needed. In some cases like The Music Machine the record company would feel that having covers of already popular songs on the LP would increase sales.

I don't think expectations have changed when you look at the mainstream.

Cher Lloyd. Do her fans play the album through? probably not, does she need 8+ songs to get her point across? I don't think so. Will it get good reviews from respected music critics/prestigious awards, no chance.

One Cher Lloyd album in 27 years is over-saturation because it's not needed in the first place, but albums cost more than singles so they'll make one.

happyman81

Odaise Gaelach wrote: »

Would it be that it's more common for bands to go on continental and world tours now than before?

Sure The Beatles toured constantly and pumped out the likes of Rubber Soul and Revolver while doing so. Not all albums were full of covers, back then, either.

smokedeels

happyman81 wrote: »

Sure The Beatles toured constantly and pumped out the likes of Rubber Soul and Revolver while doing so..

Sorry dude...

"Unlike the five albums that preceded it, Rubber Soul was recorded during a specific period, the sessions not dashed off in between either tour dates or during filming projects. After this, every Beatles album* would be made without the need to pay attention to other commitment"

*Revolver being one of them

linkage

happyman81

smokedeels wrote: »

happyman81 wrote: »

Sure The Beatles toured constantly and pumped out the likes of Rubber Soul and Revolver while doing so..

Sorry dude...

"Unlike the five albums that preceded it, Rubber Soul was recorded during a specific period, the sessions not dashed off in between either tour dates or during filming projects. After this, every Beatles album* would be made without the need to pay attention to other commitment"

*Revolver being one of them

linkage

Actually, that backs my point. Four weeks is barely a breather. Revolver was recorded in eight weeks, granted. But both albums were just six months apart, and were bookended by endless touring and screaming girls, etc.

I'm sure there are other example besides the fab four. So why can't bands manage that these days? Why does it take many bands 3-5 years between albums?

It seems quite a leap in time.

smokedeels

happyman81 wrote: »

Actually, that backs my point. Four weeks is barely a breather. Revolver was recorded in eight weeks, granted. But both albums were just six months apart, and were bookended by endless touring and screaming girls, etc.

I'm sure there are other example besides the fab four. So why can't bands manage that these days? Why does it take many bands 3-5 years between albums?

It seems quite a leap in time.

I guess the Beatles are a difficult yardstick to use, simply because most bands (from any era) don't have the amount of new ideas that they had.

Still, it's a good question.

I guess some indie bands have day jobs/other projects and while the band doesn't go on anything like an official hiatus it's not a constant thing as they don't have the time/money to keep churning out product.

lordgoat

meh, the beatles were pop, most pop acts have albums out every year or so.

Good music takes time, i'm happy to wait for a band i like to make the album they want to make.

happyman81

lordgoat wrote: »

meh, the beatles were pop, most pop acts have albums out every year or so.

Good music takes time, i'm happy to wait for a band i like to make the album they want to make.

In other news, I think blue is better than red.

Discussing the rank of art must be the most pointless and futile form of human interaction there is.

Ah well...

I think work ethic is also part of the problem. Back in the hey day, people worked their asses off, touring (200 nights a year woupld not have been excessive) recording an album every 6 months etc. Now it's (I am generalising tbf) a lot more to do with press relations, media etc than the actual meat and potatoes of being a working musician. I'd say a lot of bands don't work as hard as they used to. (again, another massive generalisation - what can ya do - I'm in the mood)

GoldenTickets

happyman81 wrote: »

In other news, I think blue is better than red.

Definitely! It has Back in the USSR on it for one thing.

karaokeman

Its weird when you think that nowadays bands are criticized for rushing albums if they don't take 2-3 years to make one. The same goes for bands who are considered "commercial" or hugely mainstream.

There was nothing more mainstream back in the 60s than the Beatles, the same could be said now of KOL or Coldplay and no one hated the Beatles back in the day for their mainstream status.

I'd be interested to know how many demo's bands and musicians actually make now compared to "back in the day".

Its one thing to record a s***load of mediocre tunes and get a mediocre album out every year or every 6 months but its another to record a s***load of demo's and choose the best 12 or so that will make it on to a great album you release every 2-3 years.

Metallica and Noel Gallagher spring to mind, they had so many demo's from way back that they are only now perfecting a final piece to use on their records. A great song can take time but its well worth the effort if you are going to do it like writing drafts.

Sinfonia

Deleted User wrote: »

I think work ethic is also part of the problem. Back in the hey day, people worked their asses off, touring (200 nights a year woupld not have been excessive) recording an album every 6 months etc. Now it's (I am generalising tbf) a lot more to do with press relations, media etc than the actual meat and potatoes of being a working musician. I'd say a lot of bands don't work as hard as they used to. (again, another massive generalisation - what can ya do - I'm in the mood)

I'd have thought that musicians would feel a greater pressure to perform live now (thus taking away time for writing and recording), as the value of recorded music has declined due to file sharing.

Irish Guitarist

Hard Fi released an album last year. It had been four years since they had released the album that preceded it. In that space of time forty odd years ago Jimi Hendrix had recorded Are You Experienced, Axis: Bold As Love, Electric Ladyland and the live album Band Of Gypsys, as well as numerous tracks that didn't see the light of day until after his death.

The period of time that a musical genius recorded four albums that, in my opinion, are some of the best music ever recorded is now the period of time that a band takes to record one bland album.

Adyx

Not enough as much drug use in my opinion....

Sinfonia

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Hard Fi released an album last year. It had been four years since they had released the album that preceded it. In that space of time forty odd years ago Jimi Hendrix had recorded Are You Experienced, Axis: Bold As Love, Electric Ladyland and the live album Band Of Gypsys, as well as numerous tracks that didn't see the light of day until after his death.

The period of time that a musical genius recorded four albums that, in my opinion, are some of the best music ever recorded is now the period of time that a band takes to record one bland album.

To be fair, Hendrix had that all-important advantage of being a good musician.

maccored

bands made good money int he 60s from albums .... thats no longer the case, therefore recording isnt as much a priority as live touring. Plus, labels these days tend to reject a lot of material from bands. So much has changed in the past 40 years that music in the 60s and music today are barely related anymore.

zappa outlines some of the changes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UAWqwLjN70