ts: releasing an album per vs. taking two-three-four-five years between albums

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

well??

― jess (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:05 (twenty-one years ago)

depends on the artist and their songwriting/producing method. i like that daft punk keep us hanging, because you know it'll be earthshattering when it hits, whereas if the pixies had taken a few years per album we probably wouldnt like them so much.

― Felonious Drunk (Felcher), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Album per year. With tons of singles, non-album tracks in between.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:07 (twenty-one years ago)

haha i was totally thinking of the pixies and daft punk when i started this

i guess rap has sort of taken over from rock in this regard

― jess (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:09 (twenty-one years ago)

even rap has slowed down

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:10 (twenty-one years ago)

it's kind of humbling to think that jay-z released eight albums in eight years, one of which was a double. it's not like they were all solid gold, but the work ethic is admirable.

― jess (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:10 (twenty-one years ago)

god i remember at the time thinking it took de la soul forever to followup 3 feet high.

jay-z was on a mission.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:11 (twenty-one years ago)

album per year is perilous, but probably my favorite approach. when an artist is really on top of his/her/their game (1980-1987 prince), prolific output is the greatest - you get to understand the creative process, risks are taken, more continuous stylistic evolution. when an artist is NOT on top of his/her/their game (1990-present prince), this approach sometimes serves to dilute their great past achievements, but that way, when the artist regains the muse, they wont be so far out of the recording/releasing loop that a triumphant comeback album will be aborted.

― peter smith (plsmith), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Hip-hoppers sure do like to churn them out these days. I never quite got that. I guess it has something to do with the perceived small window of opportunity / fickle nature of hh fans? I think the albums suffer from it, too much filler, too many skits.

I mean, I love Missy as much as the next guy, but do we really need an album a year? just HOW many albums does Ja Rule have?!? (and he's apparantly got another one due!)

not just rock though- Royal Trux was one of my favorite bands of the 90s, but towards the end there I just couldn't keep up with them. By the time I got around to buying the latest record, they were already releasing a new one.

― Monetizing Eyeballs (diamond), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:15 (twenty-one years ago)

should say not just rap there

― Monetizing Eyeballs (diamond), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:16 (twenty-one years ago)

it seems like artists that pump out an album a year tend to change their sound more frequently, whereas it's pretty common for someone who takes 5 years between albums to not change much at all. so my pet theory is that if you keep on your grind and put something out every year, you'll get bored quickly if you do the same things so you stay creative, whereas if you take a few years off between, you might be more comfortable reiterating what you've already done with slight updates.

― Al (sitcom), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:20 (twenty-one years ago)

The multiple albums in one year approach of MF Doom, Devendra Banhart and others (John Frusciante is putting a few out this year, right?) just strikes me as a bad idea. I like Doom quite a bit, but can't even get interested in the new V Vaughn or his solo album, just because I've heard him on SO many albums in the past year or so. I think fans need time to digest.

I think some artists can have a longer lasting career if they do a combo of putting out an album per year for awhile, and then taking a few years off, and then doing the album per year approach for awhile. I'd say Waits is a good example of this.

― Jonathan (Jonathan), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:26 (twenty-one years ago)

i also think it can be a sign of an encroaching pretentiousness when you start to "take time" between albums. slim shady alb 99 -> marshall mathers 00 -> em show 02 -> and no sign of any new album this year which means next one at least 05 and dear god if it's any more self-absorbed.

― jess (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Releasing multiple albums a year is a terrible idea.

I pretty much agree with Al's reasoning. People seem to take more chances when they release more stuff (esp. more singles.)

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Hasn't eminem run out of names for his albums?

― Jonathan (Jonathan), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:29 (twenty-one years ago)

multiple albums in one year generally means you a. think you're more clever than you actually are, b. enjoy fleecing your fans, c. some combo of the two.

― jess (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:29 (twenty-one years ago)

d. Jandek.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:31 (twenty-one years ago)

also when I think about some of my favorite album-a-year peak periods (Sonic Youth, Prince, Talking Heads, Jay-Z, etc.), the thought of half of the albums from each of those periods not having existed or every 2 albums being combined into one is a very scary thought, what a loss that would be.

but yeah, more than one album a year is overkill, unless maybe they're really short or completely seperate kind of projects.

― Al (sitcom), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Also I think that the album a year thing can be padded out with live albums, DJ mixes with new-ish singles and collabs. Anything where the artist is actually working as opposed to doing whatever Massive Attack does in between albums.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Also I need a Missy album a year right now.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:36 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah for artists for whom releasing an album involves world tours and a long cycle of singles, taking more than a year or two between is a bit more forgiveable.

― Al (sitcom), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:39 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree with Pete, it's impossible to generalize. Autechre 1993-1998 were on an amazing creative streak, releasing 70 minute albums and 40 minute singles in all of those years.

It is amazing that some artists can release an album every few years and yet 1) nobody considers the artist to be a relic from a past age, 2) their sound evolves despite the long layoff (i.e. they don't stick to the formula that worked for them 5-10 years ago), 3) their releases remain highly anticipated. The best example I can think of is LFO.

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:47 (twenty-one years ago)

(Smog)

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:50 (twenty-one years ago)

that's all I gotta say to deflate your theory, I mean.

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Wait. LFO didn't stick to the formula? And just because their past age is somewhat in vogue at the moment who doesn't consider them relics?

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:50 (twenty-one years ago)

He did SAY "tend"!

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Wait. LFO didn't stick to the formula?
What? LFO's three albums sound nothing like each other!

And "been around for a long time" =! "relics".

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 17:24 (twenty-one years ago)

musicians should be making music. they should be doing it constantly. if prince can release an album a year, with the occasional double, while playing all the instruments himself, then so can you. and so SHOULD you.

i automatically assume that artists who are taking a long time between albums are stuck for ideas. there's really no other good reason to wait. (i'm sure marketing depts at record companies could come up with lots and lots of reasons, but marketing depts at record companies don't interest me. artistically, this is a case of more is more.)

the exception to the rule is robert pollard, who would be a lot better off releasing one or two albums a year, instead of five or six. which is to say, i'm not oppposed on exercising a bit of critical judgment on one's own material.

but, crazy exceptions like that notwithstanding, this is why madonna is better than bruce springsteen, and why britney spears is better than christina aguilera.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 17:29 (twenty-one years ago)

In Devendra's case, all the songs which make up both of this year's albums were recorded at the same time. Does that make it slightly less pretentious?

Also, what about artists who release two albums on a single day? GNR did it. Springsteen did it. Someone else did it recently, but I can't remember who it was.

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 17:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Nelly is going to next month.

― Al (sitcom), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 17:33 (twenty-one years ago)

springsteen releasing two albums on a single day was a pathetic way of trying to make up for the fact that he hadn't released anything in five years before that. also, they weren't very good.

if you're going to release two albums in a day, you might as well release three, and make them good, a la magnetic fields.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 17:35 (twenty-one years ago)

but another major somewhat recent two-albums-in-a-day guy would be tom waits.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 17:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Lambchop, Johnny. Fact Checking Cuz OTM up and down this thread.

― steve hise, Tuesday, 24 August 2004 17:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I was thinking of Waits, but had forgotten about Lambchop's 2 in a day feat this year.

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 17:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, also Frank Black in 2002.

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 17:42 (twenty-one years ago)

multiple albums in one year generally means you a. think you're more clever than you actually are, b. enjoy fleecing your fans, c. just happen to be a busy motherfucker.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 17:44 (twenty-one years ago)

FCC makes good points, but I think most people would take quality over quantity. To use his example, let's call it "The Guided By Voices Rule", but this is far more than a "crazy exception".
I will always take a classic album every four years over one mediocre-good album every year for four years. The crazy exceptions are the Autechre-Prince types, who can release classics every year.

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 17:48 (twenty-one years ago)

What about bands who release simultaneous solo albums by each member, and should Velvet Revolver have hired Josh Todd instead?

― dave q, Tuesday, 24 August 2004 17:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Even some great musicians need day jobs!

― Jordan (Jordan), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 17:50 (twenty-one years ago)

is there an example besides K*I*S*S, dave?

― peter smith (plsmith), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 17:51 (twenty-one years ago)

trying to take a side on this makes my head explode

― juiceboxxx (juiceboxxx), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 17:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I think most people would take quality over quantity

i think that's a false choice. almost every one of my favorite albums was made by an artist at his or her most prolific. and almost every band or artist that i can think of has made far better records when they were releasing 'em every year than when they slowed down to every three or four years. i think the very act of constantly writing and recording makes you better.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 17:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Agreed.

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:01 (twenty-one years ago)

didn't the melvins do something similar – solo albums from each member? (in response to previous query)

― Bruce S. Urquhart (BanjoMania), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, and they even mocked the Kiss covers.

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:07 (twenty-one years ago)

and outkast kinda sorta did it too!

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:08 (twenty-one years ago)

though they unfortunately neglected to mock the kiss covers.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:09 (twenty-one years ago)

the answer to this thread is jandek

― amateur!!st, Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:09 (twenty-one years ago)

or Tupac.

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:10 (twenty-one years ago)

or r. stevie moore

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:10 (twenty-one years ago)

though tupac deserves a million bonus points for releasing one or two albums a year while technically dead.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:11 (twenty-one years ago)

If people can do it, you know, and keep putting out good material, you know, then I think it's good, but if they need to take some time off and that's how they are able to remain true to their creative gestalt, then you know, I think that's fine and it's all relevant depending on whose creativeness is under inquiry.

― Rockist_Scientist (rockist_scientist), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:14 (twenty-one years ago)

you know.

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:15 (twenty-one years ago)

rockist, please report at once to the "it depends" thread.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:15 (twenty-one years ago)

But I started it.

― Rockist_Scientist (rockist_scientist), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:17 (twenty-one years ago)

hmm, so you did. do the other kids on that thread know that you've been sneaking out and saying "it depends" on other threads?

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I really really really want to take sides against releasing multiple albums a year, but when I think of Kool Keith releasing Black Elvis and Dr. Dooom the same year and Buckethead releasing Bermuda Triangle and Electric Tears and Funnel Weaver the same year and Mike Patton releasing a Fantomas album and a Tomahawk album and a colab with Merzbow and a solo album all in the same year, and how, in general, those releases fair in my memory to those these same artists spread out over longer periods of time (Kool Keith 2 years between Black Elvis and the borderline god awful Matthew, Mike Patton [while with Faith No More] 2 years between King For a Day and Album of the Year, etc.), I get the feeling I may have to take the side of FOR people doing this.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:26 (twenty-one years ago)

ha ha, I realize now that I click submit that Kool Keith nor Buckethead nor Mike Patton are exactly shining examples of ILM-appreciated musos.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:28 (twenty-one years ago)

we shall never see eye to eye shall we nickalicious

haha xpost

― jess (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:29 (twenty-one years ago)

"modern" scott walker and jandek seem to be the extremes here among artists i would classify as "active". scott's averaging one every 10-11 years, and the rumblings of a new one seem to bear this out. jandek is on 2-3 proper albums a year, right?

― peter smith (plsmith), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I can't believe this thread got so far without explicit mention of John Zorn.

― Jordan (Jordan), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:45 (twenty-one years ago)

It's pretty amazing to think of all the albums the Beatles, Stones, etc. recorded in a seven-year span. Maybe we should bring back the 12-song, 34-minute album as the standard format...

― mike a, Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:50 (twenty-one years ago)

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes mike a!

― peter smith (plsmith), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:51 (twenty-one years ago)

whatever - i guess i like long-ass albums with long-ass songs a lot, too. but there is something nice about the 35-40 minute album.

― peter smith (plsmith), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:53 (twenty-one years ago)

It's pretty amazing to think of all the albums the Beatles, Stones, etc. recorded in a seven-year span. Maybe we should bring back the 12-song, 34-minute album as the standard format...
-- mike a (mik...), August 24th, 2004.

a few of the drag city artists conform to this. smog and will oldham basically release an album a year (oldham also seems to release a handful of EPs/soundtracks/etc every year) and they tend to be of relatively short (under-45 min) length.

― amateur!!st, Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:53 (twenty-one years ago)

also: the shins!

wasn't their last album like 25 minutes long??

― amateur!!st, Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:54 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah - but sorta boring on repeated listens.

― peter smith (plsmith), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:55 (twenty-one years ago)

"Maybe we should bring back the 12-song, 34-minute album as the standard format... "

14 song 40 minute album in Britain

― Krankenhaus, Tuesday, 24 August 2004 18:57 (twenty-one years ago)

I think artists should put out more music in general. Don't wait a few years and then try and make us re-purchase the album with special "bonus tracks" or even oooooh and bonus CD. Sometimes the bonus tracks end up being great, but then you're pissed because you bought the same album twice. Or you bought some stupid single or EP for 1 track.

Actually I'd be happy with a band that put out quarterly EPs. I think that would be great. Think of the freedom they'd have. They could throw together a concept EP and not have to stick in those songs that don't quite fit or that do but suck just to fill space. Or they could just try out an idea and recover 3 months later if it sucked.

― Mike Salmo (salmo), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 19:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Actually I'd be happy with a band that put out quarterly EPs. I think that would be great.

Coil did that for a year once. Some of their best work.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 19:08 (twenty-one years ago)

i think bands should do whatever they want to do, really. the fun is in sorting it out afterward.

― amateur!!st, Tuesday, 24 August 2004 19:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Didn't Radiohead say they were going to start tossing out EPs because doing big "event" albums every few years was getting to be a drag? I think that sounds great, get on that shit.

― Jordan (Jordan), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 19:15 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm a big fan of those few acts who record a "proper" album but at the same time record a slightly "stranger" record, like U2 did with "Achtung Baby" and "Zooropa," or James with "Laid" and "Wah Wah." I know a lot of people here hate those bands/albums, but I think it's great that Eno convinced them to hammer something out in their spare time. I read that "Zooropa" was recorded in two studios, quite quickly. U2 would record the basic track then send it over to a second studio for Eno and friends to fiddle with it. Repeat as necessary. Same with James.

The major label release schedules generally frown upon that stuff, though, since they don't know how to market the "little" records. Or are just lazy. That's what drove Prince bonkers in the '90s.

― Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 23:13 (twenty-one years ago)

how about an album a month?

Atom Heart / Atom (tm) / Senior Coconut / etc..

― Savin All My Love 4 u (Savin 4ll my (heart) 4u), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 23:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Album every year equals (approx) one good track per month. Given the shite that does actually make its way to albums this is surely not an impossible ask. However I'd still prefer four fantastic singles ever year, for one thing it's easier to download.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 24 August 2004 23:40 (twenty-one years ago)

"I can't believe this thread got so far without explicit mention of John Zorn."

Jazz and improv music is a bit different, run the tape for a few hours and some of those guys can crank out a few albums in an afternoon.

― Earl Nash (earlnash), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 00:29 (twenty-one years ago)

and you can't stop me from droppin each march
with a brand new cd for these fuckin retards

― artiste (artiste), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 03:58 (twenty-one years ago)

d' muthafuckin angelo to thread STAT.

― Forksclovetofu (Forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 05:06 (twenty-one years ago)

"14 song 40 minute album in Britain"

Cue more "make CDs cheaper" yelling (which I would agree with). Billboard started whining about the shortness of albums/"CDs" in the late '80s/early '90s with some Sam Phillips LP, as if 'Revolver' or 'Ace of Spades' had happened a hundred years ago or something.

― Rickey Wright (Rrrickey), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 05:20 (twenty-one years ago)

artiste: Zorn raps? Cool, though, I could never imagine Frisell referring to his fans as "retards."

― Rickey Wright (Rrrickey), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 05:22 (twenty-one years ago)

"Hammering out" tracks/extra albums = good. Led to the white album, no?

On the other hand, those guys put out some of their best music of the period on 45s three or four times a year . . .

― Rickey Wright (Rrrickey), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 05:24 (twenty-one years ago)

(Slightly) more seriously, does more music -- in the sense of "minutes per year" -- lead to more/less good stuff, or at least a devaluation of what's considered "good" (which can mean two different things to the artist and the listener)?

― Rickey Wright (Rrrickey), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 05:28 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean, I play the black album a fair bit, 'Lovesexy' not so much . . . and wish I had the "I Wish U Heaven (Pts. 1, 2 & 3)" 12-inch (the most unimaginably tasty 10:something take on both) more readily at hand (on CD or MP3).

― Rickey Wright (Rrrickey), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 05:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Considering Autechre 1993-1998 as a benchmark (for now), I'd say that there was no devaluation when the material was being released, because they never stuck to a single formula and it was all so consistently excellent.

Once that streak ended, and they returned to making an album every two years (which weren't up to the gold standard they'd already set for themselves), then their post-1998 work was set in marked contrast to what had come before it. That is, the post-1998 work was devaluated, even though it was still pretty good.

Would the same apply to Prince?

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 05:43 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm all for an album an year.

Most albums on major labels seems to take a lot of extra time fulfilling all the loose ends (e.g. paying the union of the person who got the coffee for the producer will take a month), which is why they can't usually crank one out a year.

― Michael F Gill (Michael F Gill), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 14:57 (twenty-one years ago)

"Considering Autechre 1993-1998 as a benchmark (for now)"

I like Autechre, but considering those albums as a benchmark for musical evolution is ridiculous especially considering the absolute breakneck pace which rave music was developing over a similar period. Aphex Twin has a better case for development than Autechre over the same period.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 15:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Good point about Aphex, but I think there are way more Autechre rip-offs/influences around today ... you can trace all of the 59028 Boards of Canada IDM clones back to "Tri Repetae" and "Garbage".

The music may have developed rapidly, but how many artist were keeping up with it *every* year like Ae and Aphex were?

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 15:32 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't see either Autechre or Aphex keeping up with anything actually. And the music was developing rapidly cuz people like Goldie, 4Hero, DJ Hype, Edrush, Doc Scott, Aphrodite, et all, were ACTUALLY innovating (as opposed to simply "borrowing" the innovations of scenes which they considered beneath them to be involved in *cough* Aphex *cough*.) And since you can trace 99% of those clones of those back to Cluster, I think we should be giving those two the props for inspiring all these BOC knock offs (or BOC for that matter.) Either way.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 25 August 2004 15:40 (twenty-one years ago)

eight years pass...

rihanna's album release dates (trusting wikipedia on this):

1. august 2005
2. april 2006
3. june 2007
4. november 2009
5. november 2010
6. november 2011
7. november 2012

god bless her.

― fact checking cuz, Thursday, 14 February 2013 01:43 (thirteen years ago)

Am I missing something? I mean, obviously all of us want quality material to be released.

So, however long it takes to do that. And yes, it depends on the artist/musician/band.

No use waiting around 5 years for a new Lady Gaga album if it is crap.

Similarly, it's awesome when a band releases an album every 2 years and has great material, on the few occasions that it has happened.

All of this with the huge caveat that music is--gasp!--SUBJECTIVE.

― kafkaesque (c21m50nh3x460n), Thursday, 14 February 2013 02:41 (thirteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.