When, how and why did 2-3+ years between albums become the rule instead of the exception?

that's probably part of it....compared to the old days, I guess now a typical album could be considered 2 or at least 1 1/2 albums from back then in terms of running time....

...but it does seem like it takes people longer even if they keep their stuff fairly short, like the strokes or something...

xpost

Like the above posts, I think the two main reasons are the CD format's extended running time and savier marketing (less is more, build anticipation).

What I wanna know is how the Beatles pulled it off; they'd usually release one or two (non-soundtrack) full-lengths the same year they spent a pretty decent amount of time making movies.

are mmore albums released these days? i mean - could it be record companies holding stuff up for the market?

Maybe, but isn't the market be more fragmented than it was 25 years ago? A Strokes album two years in the making shouldn't have to compete with a Missy record that's been incubating for the same amount of time (though fuck it, I'd buy both)

I know nobody on ILM gives a crap, but the Rolling Stones, who started gradually elongating their between album waits with the 3-year wait between 83's Undercover and 86's Dirty Work, are currently in the midst of the biggest between-studio-album (note: STUDIO album) void in their history: almost 8 years since Bridges to Babylon!!

But it really doesn't hold when you take a look at hip-hop... look at a fool like Ja Rule -- an album a year between 1999 and 2004. SIX Ja Rule albums in that stretch!! Who the heck owns or would want to own six Ja Rule albums? Is this necessary??

Also interesting that Nate mentioned Missy, as she had an album-a-year stretch there for three years running.

Modern Life is Rubbish - 1993
Parklife - 1994
The Great Escape - 1995
Blur - 1996

Also the Fiery Furnaces albums came out within 12 months of each other with their third (and fourth?) already written I believe.

The real shame is that majors expect bands and artists to be successful on their debut, rather than in the "good ol' days" when they'd at least let them release a few records before getting dropped.

Yeah, I think that's the right analogy. The whole shift to making tons of money over a protracted period off one thing instead of making less money over shorter time off several things consecutively. (Look at the difference between Asian cinema and Hollywood, even now -- Wong Kar-wai excepted -- but I mean, look how many movies Stephen Chow or Maggie Cheung have made compared to American stars the same age.) This was Prince's whole fight, wasn't it, wanting to release more records than Warner Bros. would let him? And we all know publishing has followed the same blockbuster model.

Kinda makes me wonder about the possible impact of by-the-song digital sales. What if you had an artist who could sell 100,000 copies of any new song in a few days? Maybe the incentive would shift back to releasing a song a week or something.

1.Technology! Dunno what the present-day standard for recording is: 64-track or 128-track or whatever. But you can bet that since "they" (musicians, producers, etc.) have so many tracks at their disposal, there's no way they're NOT gonna take advantage & fill 'em all up. I would assume that mixing is an absolute nightmare.

2.Revenue! I may be totally wrong about this, but didn't touring overtake album sales in terms of profits some years ago? 'Way back when, bands went on tour mostly to promote their latest LP. Until the late 60s or early 70s, when the situation reversed itself. Now, before the Stones decide to go on tour, they slap together a half-assed LP to ensure visibility.

3.Songs! As in, bands simply record TOO G-DAMNED MANY of the fuckers! Why write/record 40 if only 20, 25 tops are going to be used on the LP? Plus maybe a half-dozen for b-sides and whatnot.

4.And yes, also the "Thriller" phenomenon already mentioned plays a part.

Probably has to do with milking the album for a lot of singles, which means it may indeed have started with "Thriller", "Hysteria", "Rhythm Nation" and those other 80s albums that contained a zillion singles in one album.

When I saw Gruff Rhys play, he introduced a song as being off the next SFA album.

Those who are already established, and who know that they may wait a few years and they still will not risk being forgotten next time around.

..are increasingly wrong. See interviews with U2 two years ago about "Pearl Jam released a record last year, and it sold nothing! R.E.M. the same! What the hell is going on?".

Bingo. The Def Leppard method became the rule, not the exception.

e.g. The Jam's "This is the modern world" or Buzzcocks "Love Bites" would both have benefitted from a little more time and work.

Exception : "White Light White Heat" but that was because the Banana album was finished for ages before it got released...

For major label artists, a lot of the blame rests with the narrow bandwidth of the mass-market promotional channel. Even with roster cuts, there are still a lot more artists on major labels than can release a record a year and have at least one song be one of the 60-70 or so total that get any kind of non-niche radio or TV play at any one time. Plus, yes, tours are longer (go everywhere twice), recordings twice as long (although they're getting shorter), and people way fussier about sound. And they take more vacations.

Not always. I'm upset that Ween now has 3-years between all their albums, when one of their best records, The Mollusk, was released only 9 months after 12 Golden Country Greats.

And Amnesiac was anything but a let-down, IMO.

I'm not the biggest Ryan Adams fan, but I do like how he clearly doesn't give a shit whether the market is flooded with product or not - more power to you Ryan, for releasing two single albums and one double this year.

This doesn't seem to be the case w/rappers, who don't seem to tour nearly as much as rock bands, and who subsequently tend to release albums at a quicker pace. It's not just Ja Rule -- Jay-Z released NINE albums from 1996-2003...

The multi-single strategy is rational, too. I believe the numbers would indicate that nothing goes through the roof sales-wise without at least 2-3 singles. A second successful single doesn't merely double sales, it squares sales (or better).

also, what blount said -- labels DEFINITELY require an extended touring schedule, particularly if a record is not selling as well as they would like/expect.