Artists who can and do go many years between releases

Is this mostly a 21st century thing; artists like D'Angelo, Joanna Newsom, Fiona Apple who wait years to develop a new batch of material, then attention gathers when new work in announced, like they never left? A lot of bands wait 3-4 years between records nowadays, but I'm thinking more like 6+ years. Different than a comeback, as there's a implication that they've been brewing the batch for much of the time, and there's no concession to contemporary trends or "back to basics/trying this new genre". In the 20th century, there were obligations and ambitions to keep up the new material. Kate Bush pioneered indifference to this, right? Scott Walker too. Who else has this kind of patient following? Chinese Democracy is sorta the counter example, as it was promised endlessly.

i tend to think people wait way too long and spontaneity can be lost. but if they are happy, who am i to say? i do wish some of the geniuses of the 20th century had more than 3 hours (!!!) (because their label didn't want to pay union overtime!) or whatever to make records. imagine a little time and money going to Charles Mingus? Eric Dolphy? oh the list goes on and on. they made albums in a day that people still listen to 60 years later. didn't black sabbath make their debut in a day? imagine if they had a week? a month? would it have been better? how in the world could it have been? so, i am of two minds. but waiting YEARS does seem excessive if you are a professional musician. then again, if i had tons of money i would probably just be eating really good every night. fuck the recording studio. it'll keep.

but, also, some people do just write really slowly. it just doesn't come quickly.

Three that immediately come to mind in varying degrees: Leonard Cohen, Randy Newman, Peter Gabriel and (at the very end) David Bowie.

Cohen never released albums in back-to-back years, even though his recording career got off to a great start in 1967 (back when an album a year was virtually standard for any major recording artist). It wasn't until the '80s that the gaps got much longer, which wasn't a surprise given how long it could take him to finish a song. 5 years after Recent Songs, then 4, another 4, then 9, 3, 8, 2 and 2 more until he passed away. (The acceleration towards the end could be attributed to his failing health and the desire to do as much as he could before the inevitable happened.) Only two stretches that went beyond 6 years, but I still need to bring him up because he fits the model - waiting until a song was ready and when he had enough of them. Even when he needed money badly (thanks to the brazen thievery of his ex-manager), he didn't write new material, he toured and put out an album and DVD of a couple of those shows (though one of those may be THE go-to Cohen album for many listeners).

Randy Newman is the same way, though his career is a bit different because income-wise, he became primarily a film composer during the '80s. He still puts out albums of new material, but there was never pressure to do one, it was just whenever he came up with the material at his own pace then having his close friend Lenny Waronker at Warner then DreamWorks helping him getting it released. In terms of songs, I think his core catalog of albums (just the ones with new songs recorded in the studio) is one of the most consistent in popular music - but he's done only a dozen of them whereas his contemporaries have done 2 or 3 times as much, and ultimately I think taking his sweet time writing the material is a big reason for that consistency.

Then there's Peter Gabriel who is also a slow worker and makes albums like he's chipping away at an epic sculpture.

And then there's David Bowie who decided to step away from the spotlight, and IMHO came up with his two best albums in at least 30 years because he just did them when the inspiration came and produced enough material.

*Four that immediately (threw in Gabriel at the last minute)

Scott Walker

Let's not forget Bryan Ferry.

Scott Walker apparently wanted to record more often than he did...but there are stories of how difficult he was to work with by the time of Climate of Hunter and onwards that can perhaps explain why he had difficulty finding anyone to allow him to be more productive.

All of these artists listed are notable for putting importance on lyrics (I'm guessing about D'Angelo), making Big Statement Albums (I guess Ferry doesn't really do this), and fussing about obtaining perfect performances and sonics (maybe not so much latter-day Cohen). Supposedly Randy Newman spent months writing string arrangements for "Sail Away", which I've never understood - surely he knew what he wanted and how to obtain it even without hearing his arrangement played?

I wonder if anyone would argue that these artists would be better if they were more productive. One could look at earlier days when they released (perhaps better) albums at a more rapid clip, but I'm inclined to believe that their busier release schedules were due to being more inspired and energetic in their youth (as well as needing to keep up with contemporary music business expectations).

Scritti Politti: three albums put out within 7 years then gaps of 11 and 7 years, with the last album released 18 years ago now.

Re: Newman, Janet Maslin interviewed him about Little Criminals for the NY Times, and to my surprise, he wasn't sure if he could follow up Good Old Boys due to lack of material. (It was a three year gap between the two.) Those four previous albums actually relied far more on previously composed material than I had originally believed - that is, it wasn't just the songs that had already been recorded by other artists. He basically exhausted what he had stockpiled after Good Old Boys and had to start from scratch. As much as I enjoy Little Criminals, I think it's at best a second-tier Newman album and was likely overrated by too many critics at the time. (Christgau and Marcus both expressed their disappointment in print, but it still landed in the top ten of that year's Pazz & Jop poll.) It's still a good album, but it's strengths are primarily in the music and arrangements - lyrically, the songs just aren't nearly as compelling or interesting as his previous work, and one wonders if "starting from scratch" partially explains the less-inspired material.

With Cohen, the knock on his studio albums is that they've often been poorly produced, but when I started reading interviews about his work (not just with him but with others close to him like Rebecca De Mornay of all people), I was surprised how much he labored on his albums, looking for the right arrangement or the right way to record them. So he really did fuss about that - he wanted the best presentation for his songs - but I guess great songwriters are always equally adept at record-making even when they put in the same effort? (Maybe that's why the Live in London album comes off better - he settles into a comfortable, pleasant but low-key setup and just focuses on putting the songs over in his own performance.)

*aren't always equally adept

Vashti Bunyan - 35 years between first and second album, 9 years between 2 and 3

in this century, Bob Dylan

Neil Young OTOH could probably stand to go longer between new releases

Prince too from 1998 to 2016. Based on what he did release, I think he had six, maybe even seven really good studio albums, but a lot of that was spread out over 18 albums. Maybe four of those were good, but 3121 would've been a great album if he replaced the weakest cuts with the best tracks he released the following year.

he had six, maybe even seven really good studio albums, but a lot of that was spread out over 18 albums

is this not the exact opposite of what this thread is asking?

anyway people like dylan have already written so very many songs it's no wonder that, apart from the vagaries of ageing, it might take a while to come up with something vaguely new

and then there are yr kevin shieldses and portisheads

George Michael's solo career was remarkably parsimonious - over almost 30 years, he only put out 4 albums of original material.

Robert Wyatt seems like one of these people

is this not the exact opposite of what this thread is asking?

That was in response to Brad's Neil Young OTOH could probably stand to go longer between new releases, the post that immediately preceded mine. That should've been obvious even without the italics.

It was not.

That's kind of a funny response considering that it follows the same logic of responding to a preceding post without needing to quote it.

I was responding to Zelda Zonk - George Michael's solo career was *not* remarkably parsimonious.

(Just kidding.)

George Michael's solo career

He was interviewed on Radio 1 by Steve Wright in the early 90s, and was asked if he'd been approached to write songs for other people. Michael replied that he had, but couldn't, because he hardly even had enough songs for himself. Seems like he was the kind of songwriter who wrote slowly, and waited until he had enough songs that he thought were good enough for an album.

The 33 1/3 book on Faith details exactly how much time Michael and his team required to put the album together, they might spend days on four bars. He would go for a drive to write lyrics while the musicians waited in the studio.

More names: Roger Waters, Cat Power (if you don't count covers albums)

As for the Princes and Neil Youngs, while I agree in theory that they made too many records, I'm not sure that even if they limited themselves (or had been limited) to fewer releases, that they would have had the perspective to compile the better songs from the dross in a way that would appeal to their fans.

I always liked that David Sylvain just stopped for eleven years and then came back to it

Although he did Rain Tree Crow and the Fripp album/tour in that time, he wasn't absent from the music scene. But it's been thirteen years now since his last song-based record and it doesn't look like there'll be another.

For a lot of the examples so far it could be explained by there not being any financial need to release another album. Peter Gabriel didn’t ever need to release anything unless he wanted to. However for bands like Boards of Canada or My Bloody Valentine I wonder how they are getting on without releasing new material for over a decade.

sadly the first band I thought of was The Wrens

Aren’t The Feelies kind of like this?

rihanna!

pedantic question: is there a difference between...

folks who have, by all reasonable observation, probably stopped recording enough new material for their own releases + subsequently stay semi-active with occasional tours/collabs/the rare live album-

(examples: erykah badu, andre3k, the feelies, the cure. is this the new standard for 'legacy' acts?)

-and-

folks who just straight up quit? maybe not officially, but if they ever do anything else, it's a big deal.

(examples: vashti bunyan, frank ocean, maybe d'angelo?)

as far as answering thread, there is only one answer: sade.

although i'm balking at my mention of the cure because bendy said this-

Chinese Democracy is sorta the counter example, as it was promised endlessly

... which is a concept that must feel similar to cure fans by this point.

The Rolling Stones? They never really disbanded and were very active in their early years but in the past 30 years the span between albums is an average of 8 years between them.

Bridges to Babylon (1997)
Bigger Bang (2005)
Blue and Lonesome (2016)
Hackney Diamonds (2023)

Billy Nicholls and Van Dyke Parks both come to mind.

Is the "long stretch between releases" thing part of a general refusal to fuck off? Like, the Rolling Stones, as pointed out, take close to a decade between albums now, and yet they refuse to just fuck off. The Red Hot Chili Peppers have gone roughly 4-5 years between albums all this century (2002, 2006, 2011, 2016, and two albums in 2022) instead of just fucking off. On the other hand, Iron Maiden's last four albums came 4-5 years apart (2006, 2010, 2015, 2021), but they toured every year no matter what.

For a lot of the examples so far it could be explained by there not being any financial need to release another album

ding ding ding

Back when it was still possible for non-famous bands to scrape together a living on an indie label, a certain work ethic was probably necessary, which meant getting sucked into the record an album > promote the album > tour > repeat cycle because the alternative was tending bar and stocking shelves at TJs

Another subcategory is artists that are mainly producers, engineers, songwriters for others, or session players who occasionally put out an album of their own

...or actors/actresses who occasionally dabble in music

Has Joanna Newsom addressed this in interviews? I feel like she could have a dozen masterpieces by now if she wanted to.

Gillian Welch is this, feels like Welch and Rawlings are always in the kitchen but only put it on the table when they’re ready.

Is this mostly a 21st century thing

yeah imagine an artist who released their debut in 1968 and then the follow up in 1974

I guess there was Laura Nyro, who put out 4 albums in quick succession, then after a covers album in 1971 waited until 1976 for her next record, followed after that by albums in 1978, 1984, and 1993.

That five-year break after Gonna Take a Miracle was unexpected enough that it was regarded as a retirement at the time.

there are at least two versions of / approaches to this:
- those who bank tunes (writing somewhat steadily over the years) until they feel they have something good enough, or that will work in the moment
- those who decide it's time to return to the writing & recording process ("knock one out", not that they haven't written the odd riff or two in the interim)

I suspect that in most cases the former approach is more likely to yield higher quantity of quality choons

Other possible reasons, all linked:
- Death of radio / TV
- Wider market / more reliable audience
- Higher competition / artist population density
- More controlled product / available time to work on it
Basically music is now better produced / less spontaneous because artists need to aim for "impact" and the audience is not going anywhere

In the 60s and 70s, the language of popular music was in a fast state of development, there were a lot of new sounds and new technology, I think creativity came more naturally.

I sometimes find myself hobbled by the history of music when I'm in a songwriting mode, there's just too much precedent, "finding something new and worth expressing" is like trying to find a spot in an overcrowded subway

also felt like record labels were way more accomodating back then and were pushing their stable to release new records every year

Boston (aka Tom Scholz) not mentioned yet?

always found it funny that he decided to make one album a decade, by the time he finished one the trends that were popular were way different tha nthe ones when he began writing the material

Boston is a great example! Though my original thought with the thread was "those who bank tunes" as Paul describes, and Scholz feels like a "time to knock one out" sort of artist, with a very protracted sense of when it's time, and then it takes forever to get it up to standards. Boston is a particularly interesting case because late-70s AOR is really the peak of industry pressure to put out a slab every year, and it was hardly hip or poetically inspired music to start with. Just rockin' catchy tracks, man!

Scholz started making demos for Third Stage in 1980, though; I think most of these artists who go years without releases and who also own their own studios are working more or less constantly, getting lost in attempted perfectionism or second guessing.

Funny thing with Boston, I recall at the time thinking Don't Look Back took forever to come out, and that the debut album momentum was gone by then, but there were only two years between them!

Third Stage was cool in the sense that after all that time it could have come out in 1980, it just sounded like a Boston record, no attempt to be current, and it was actually a hit too

Yes, my dad loved the first one, and by the time the second one was showing up, he was wondering why they hadn't been knocking them out like Ronstadt. By the time of Third Stage, he'd stopped listening to rock altogether.

what's hilarious is that "Amanda" leaked early....three YEARS early...before it was officially released.