"The Big Slowdown": A function of a band's age, or of the times?

[rumborak]

So, while sitting in the plane to NZ today I was looking at my mp3 player, trying to choose the album I wanted to listen to. I remembered the Eddie Trunk + MP interview where MP was raving about Permanent Waves, so I clicked into my big Rush folder.
Well, one thing I notice was that Rush, in the 70s, produced an album a year, once even two albums in one year (Fly By Night, Caress of Steel). Later in the 80s it was an album every 2 years.
I then looked at other "big" bands, and saw the same thing: Queen produced an album a year during the 70s (and once again, in the case of Queen II and Sheer Heart Attack, two albums in one year), and then moved to releasing one album every 2 years in the 80s.
Pink Floyd even managed to do the double-album thing twice (A Saucerful of Secrets & More, Meddle & Relics).
DT has been a album-every-2-years band right from the start.

The question is for me: Was the quick turnout of those bands in the 70s a function of their age (young and energetic), or a function of the times (i.e. in the 70s bands were expected to have higher output).

Your thoughts?

rumborak

[jingle.boy]

Function of the times I would have to say.  Did/do new bands in the 90s or 2000s put albums out with such frequency?  I don't believe so.  Zeppelin, Floyd, Rush... all did the 5 in 5 thing (5 albums in 5 years).  It just doesn't happen anymore.  I'll also say that  the capacity of CDs had an impact as well.  What used to be 2 albums worth of material, would only be one disc.

If bands nowadays did it with that kind of frequency, I'd chalk it up to age.  But I don't think they do, so I have to chalk it up to the times.

[BlobVanDam]

Perhaps several factors.

First of all, albums were a little shorter back then. Back in the 70s the average album length was around 35 minutes. Nowadays thanks to the difference of medium, it's more like 60, varying greatly on the band of course anywhere from 40-80 minutes.

I think another factor is perhaps that bands don't make as much money on albums as they used to. Many bands rely on touring for their income, so they release an album then tour as much as possible. There's not quite as much motivation to record an album anymore.

I think it's mostly a factor of the times, rather than age, because the trend applies to most bands, even the young ones. But as the entire music industry has evolved, I'd have trouble pinning it down to one specific factor. I think it's just slowly evolved over time thanks to many different factors.

[MasterShakezula]

I'd say it's an age thing, usually.

I mean, really take any band's first recording decade (starting the year their first record was recorded/released), and compare it to any following decades, and odds are, that first decade is going to be the most populated, in terms of studio material.

I don't really think it's a matter of the times, really; there are plenty of more modern bands that have released a great deal of material in a relatively short amount of time.  Maybe not as prolifically as say in the 70s or 60s, but still pretty regularly.

Still, though I can kind of see why this sort of thing happens, it is sort of a downer.

[darkshade]

Iron Maiden released an album a year on average in the 80s. The Flower Kings released over 19 hours of music between 1994-2007. The Mars Volta released 4 albums in 5 years. and Beardfish have had an album a year from 2006-2011, except 2010, but are working on a new album due out in 2012; so that's 6 albums in 7 years.

However, I would say LP length vs CD length is a big factor. Most of DT's albums are at least double LPs size, so if they were split up, it'd be likely DT would have released an album almost every year.

[Kotowboy]

Plus I think that vinyl held less music ? SO maybe an album was less music than an album is nowadays ?

I may be talking crap 

[Kotowboy]

The band Therapy? formed in 1990 and are releasing their 13th album in Feb 2012.

So it still happens.

[MetalManiac666]

Both.  While differences in formats and the industry as a whole are definitely contributors, I feel like new bands come in with a whole host of ideas garnered from the years between their formation and the release of their first "real" album.

[ResultsMayVary]

For me, it's got to be the way of those times. DT started in the late-80s, where Queen, Pink Floyd, and others were already on their 2-year album cycles and it could have been EASILY picked up by DT, especially since they already used their music as influences, why not the album cycles? I'm not saying they sat down and said, "hey, they're doing two-year cycles, so we should too!" I'm just saying that they could have sub-consciously gotten pushed into the same cycle since others were doing that at the same time.

[KevShmev]

Function of the times.  Like has been said, records were shorter back then (usually 35-45 minutes, roughly), so it was easy to bust out a new record almost every year.

Plus, the lifestyle of the average rock star seemed pretty crazy back then compared to now.  Many lived the life of touring, sex, drugs and rock and roll, while that kind of hard living while being a rock star seems a lot less prevalent these days, so a lot of bands nowadays (not just DT) allow themselves more down time between tours and albums, instead of rushing back into the studio the second a tour is finished. 

[skydivingninja]

I'd also like to add that back then, bands wrote on the road a lot more than they do now, so it was easy to head back into the recording studio after a tour.  Another function of the times for you.

[TAC]

I think another factor is perhaps that bands don't make as much money on albums as they used to. Many bands rely on touring for their income, so they release an album then tour as much as possible. There's not quite as much motivation to record an album anymore.

Right, back in the day, bands would tour to promote an album, now bands put out albums to support a tour.

There seemed to have been more record company pressure for quick output back in the 70's. I wonder if that is true.

[kirksnosehair]

I'd say it's definitely a sign of the times. 

[jingle.boy]

I'd also like to add that back then, bands wrote on the road a lot more than they do now, so it was easy to head back into the recording studio after a tour.  Another function of the times for you.

Hell, they even recorded on the road.  Zeppelin II was recorded in several different studios around the world.

Right, back in the day, bands would tour to promote an album, now bands put out albums to support a tour.

Great point!  In the 70s, concert tickets would regularly be under $10.  Even accounting for inflation, that's way below today's usual ticket prices - whether you're DT at ~$50, or U2 at over $200.

[Super Dude]

Case in point: The Beatles vs. Tool

[King Postwhore]

I think it's a combination of both.

In the 70's, the main way of promoting one's band was touring, touring, touring.  Today there is a wide array of promotion tools. 

Also one a band is established, they tend to want to be a bit more with family and slow down the hectic life that is the road.  Now a band makes money from touring  so every few years a band tours and can take long breaks in between.

[Kotowboy]

Case in point: The Beatles vs. Tool

Truth !! Pretty sure The Beatles did two albums *every* year while Tool struggle to put out two albums a DECADE. 

[Ultimetalhead]

I'm still amazed at how much amazing music The Beatles were able to crank out in such a short period of time. Same with Zappa's many projects.

[pain of occupation]

a function of the times? perhaps. maybe even probably.

but take a band (that should be way more popular on this forum) like beardfish. theyre basically releasing an album a year (6 in 8 years, and likely 7 in 9 come next year), and they have a tendency to use up most of the 80 minute format.

exception or not, imfuckingpressive, especially considering the quality.

[Jaq]

Kind of hard to compare the music scenes of now and the early 70s, when bands sometimes put out as many as three albums in a year.

Back then, a band could sell out 12,000 seat arenas in Detroit and be totally unknown in Pittsburgh. New material meant you could tour more and try to break new markets. While FM radio allowed bands to record albums built around the entire album, the real path to success lay in getting a single on the radio. Record label promotion was a different beast back then; bands were like sharks, throwing as much material out there as they could get in order to stay moving, or they'd sink.

By the 1980s, this model had largely died, with MTV in particular being able to break a band across the entire country. You didn't NEED to record two albums in a year like Kiss did in the earliest years of their career; you could milk an album for up to a year and a half with touring and timely video releases. The arrival of the internet for music promotion, especially the rise of social media sites and Youtube, has made it possible for any band to promote themselves without the need of MTV or finding that hit single, so a band can just as easily fire off an album every two years or so (like Dream Theater) or put out four albums in 11 years (Symphony X) and stay afloat.

Times have changed, yes, but also a band's circumstances allow their workload to change too. Rush doesn't need to EVER release new material again to be able to tour, but it's nice that they do.

[Nick]

Kinda just echoing a lot of people, but I believe it to be a combination of factors. Sure, you have bands today that produce material at a quick rate, but that is certainly the exception, not the rule as it had been in the 70s. I think as many said it has something to do with LPs maxing out at 40 minutes and CDs at 80. Many people today feel they are being ripped off if a new CD only contains 40 minutes of music. And not only are bands expected to record more music, but there is less payoff for it.

In the 70's and 80's bands could make a substantial living for themselves with little support but a hard work ethic. A regular album/tour cycle could lead to success in ways I don't see it happen today. Today it is very hard to make yourself a success without a large part of it coming from some sort of commercial happening. Bands can't afford to be constantly recording albums without some decent money from touring, and nobody wants to put bands on tour that aren't moving albums.

I think downloading has really hurt in this regards. It has evened the playing field, but in doing so has greatly lowered the bar as far as I see it. Back then it looked as if the better bands could rise to the top and get a footing to build success for themselves, whereas today pretty much every band gets lost in the cyber sea, unable to go anywhere amongst the masses.

Of course I wasn't a keen observer for any of the 70's or 80's, but looking back at the bands I love and tracking their history and seeing what I do now that's just the observations I'm making.

[Super Dude]

Case in point: The Beatles vs. Tool

Truth !! Pretty sure The Beatles did two albums *every* year while Tool struggle to put out two albums a DECADE. 

Apart from 1965 and 1968, the Beatles made at least two releases every year of their major label career (I don't know the deal with Christmas albums and other fan club material so I can't be sure, it could be as much as 3 releases for every year).

[Kotowboy]

I think bands like U2 and Metallica and Tool *overthink* too much.

They think that every album has to be as good as it can possibly be and with Death Magnetic - some of the demoes are *better* than the

Final version. They need someone telling them when a song is done.

Edit - The other three members of tool have said they dont like writing with guitarist Adam Jones as he isn't satisfied until they've jammed every conceivable permutation of how a song could go.

[MetalManiac666]

Tool is a prime example of quality over quantity, so I have no problem with their album cycle.

[Kotowboy]

Except that up until 10,000 Days - every album was better than the previous one whereas 10,000 Days was a step down in song quality.

[Super Dude]

All that aside, it could also be a production technology thing. I think we all fail to appreciate how convenient and useful it is that a recording artist can lay down a demo track, edit it on a computer, record multiple takes of a song, and basically manipulate at the stroke of a key.

Setting aside all that computer nonsense, in the years shortly before the Beatles were signed onto their label, do you know how many takes a studio could provide its artists for each song? One. And they had to get it right, because what they laid down was what people would hear when they bought the record.

[King Postwhore]

Except that up until 10,000 Days - every album was better than the previous one whereas 10,000 Days was a step down in song quality.

10,000 Days is still light years better than most music out there.  I'd rather they put the time into it like they've done.

Now on the other hand Led Zep recorded Presence in 11 days and it's a masterpiece.

[Kotowboy]

I thought Presence was generally considered their worst ?

Or is that Coda ?

[KevShmev]

Zeppelin doesn't have worst albums; they have least best albums. 

[Nekov]

Zeppelin doesn't have worst albums; they have least best albums. 

Except that up until 10,000 Days - every album was better than the previous one whereas 10,000 Days was a step down in song quality.

Lateralus was really hard to top but 10,000 days is still kickass.


Regarding the discussion, as many said i think it's a combination of both. I also think that now there's also the fact that the globalized world has gotten music to places it didn't reach before, therefore opening a lot of new markets for touring, which in turn makes tours last longer, which in turn gives less time for the band to write new material.

[The King in Crimson]

I thought Presence was generally considered their worst ?

Or is that Coda ?

Most folk rate In Through The Out Door as their 'worst.'

I disagree MIGHTILY with that sentiment.

Zeppelin doesn't have worst albums; they have least best albums. 

This is also very true.

[Gorille85]

They didn't tour a whole lot in the 70's.