Touring schedule, vs. Studio output

[Cool Chris]

Inspiring by the Beatles thread... think about your favorite bands, and weigh their touring schedule vs their studio output.

Would you rather they toured more, sacrificing their studio output? 2-3 year worldwide tours, multiple stops in your area, but a new studio album every 4-5 years?

Would you prefer they toured less, and spend more time in the studio releasing new material? A new album every year, but you never get to see them live (also means fewer live releases).

Are you happy with the way things are? Vote, and discuss.

[El Barto]

I enjoy concerts more than albums. Hell, I enjoy DVDs of concerts more than I enjoy albums. This is why I've never bitched about Tool's lack of output. As long as they tour 4 or 5 times between albums I don't mind. I don't think I've listened to Death Magnetic since it came out, although I do enjoy it well enough, but I'd damn sure go see Metallica if they came to town.

[Lucien]

I don't go to concerts often at all (the only band I've ever seen live is Rush, 3 times), so I'd rather have new output.

[Zydar]

I don't go to concerts often at all (the only band I've ever seen live is Rush, 3 times), so I'd rather have new output.

This. I pretty much never go to concerts so I don't really care about touring. Give me a new album instead.

But I understand bands need to tour to make money nowadays.

[The Dark Master]

Looking at my top 3-

Dream Theater:  Pretty much found the perfect balance of write/record/tour/break/repeat.  I have no complaints about their ratio of records vs. touring; they do both with admirable regularity.

Symphony X: NEED MOAR OF BOTH!!!!11!!1  In all seriousness, though, they really need to increase the frequency of both their touring and their recorded output.  I think they had a shot at getting bigger around the time of Paradise Lost, but at their current rate of only two or three albums a decade, their momentum tends to die off before the next album is released.  Combined with touring schedules that are inconsistent, to say the least, I am beginning to fear they are doomed to play clubs for the rest of their careers.

Savatage: Savatage hasn't released an album since 2001, they haven toured since 2002, and they just played their first show since at Wacken this year (as part of a combined performance with TSO).  TSO does a holiday tour every year, but their album release schedule is even worse then Symphony X, and they really need to do more non-holiday touring so they can play more Savatage/non-holiday TSO songs.  Thankfully, they have a new album coming out in October, and a non-holiday tour planed for next year, so, all that, combined with the Savatage/TSO show at Wacken, are hopefully all signs that TSO are going to branch out a bit more from their Christmas safe-zone.  Even so, given the choice, I would rather have a proper Savatage album/tour.  If not, then I can only hope there will be another Jon Oliva's Pain album/tour in the not to distant future.

[Anguyen92]

Hmmm, I've only gone to three concerts, going to be four in September, and there were all very easy to go to.  One of them was a free show which is like 10 min. from where I live, one of them was at a casino that my family sometimes goes to, and one of them was a show that I simply must go to since it would be the only show that my favorite band was going to hit in SoCal.

I like listening to new albums, but I do want to experience more live shows that's easily accessible (got to be like less than 75 min. where I live, affordable like less than $50 for good (not great seats), and be on a weekend day).  I will stick with "things are cool the way they are" with the notation that the bands I like should hit Southern California a little more.