Can the hardcore fan ever be pleased?

[Rustycage]

Are you 16 or something? You act like a teenager that thinks he knows everything even when facts show you to be completely mistaken.

When it's right in front of your face that an "old band" produces less due to less demand and a new band produces less due to less demand, there's no point in repeating your nonsense.

You thought you found a gem but really all you found was a COINCIDENCE. Yes, a lot of older bands are less popular today. New bands with less popularity also produce less. Bands that maintain the same level of popularity also maintain a consistent level or production. A band that struggles to create new material also have lower production but new bands ALSO have this problem. It has nothing to dow tih age. Period.

Keep repeating your shit and I'll keep repeating what you already know. The cause is not age.

[SoulMonster]

Just out of boredom I looked on some artists active in the 60s. The criteria for choosing bands are as before.

Bill Haley and his Comets (18/3)

Everly Brothers (17/4)

Four Seasons (17/4)

Uhm, I can't be bother to do more, it is clear this Law applies also to band existing and being active in the heyday of albums.

Do you not see that you just conceded?

The correlation is NOT age, it is the markets and popularity.

Why didn't you just check up the terms 'correlation' and 'causality' when I asked you? Now you are just making even more of a fool of yourself.

There is a positive correlation between how many years a band has been active and how frequently it releases albums. This have been demonstrated for quite many bands now who were active in completely different time period and came from different genres. But correlation doesn't really say anything about the link between the two phenomena studied. Just that they seem to be grow or shrink in relation to each other. In other words, correlation says nothing about why. A common example used to explain this is the example of moustaches and mass murderers. There is a clear correlation but no apparent (or logical) causality.

The causal agents for the observed Law of Rusty, why it is so, has not been proven at all. It could perhaps be shown that there is causality between how old a band is and the quality of their production (hence resulting in the market demand dwindling, as you seem to be so obsessed with, grasping it like it will somehow save you), or it could be lots of other reasons. I don't really care . My point has always been to demonstrate that I was correct when I mused that old bands tend to release less frequently than new bands. Revealing your level of ignorance and stupidity was just a bonus.

[SoulMonster]

Are you 16 or something? You act like a teenager that thinks he knows everything even when facts show you to be completely mistaken.

When it's right in front of your face that an "old band" produces less due to less demand and a new band produces less due to less demand, there's no point in repeating your nonsense.

Yay! You finally admitted that old bands release less frequently than new bands! Good on you! (And again, the reasons why are irrelevant.)

You thought you found a gem but really all you found was a COINCIDENCE.

How long was Adam in Paradise? I guess the passing moment of clarity on your behalf displayed above was just a lapse in an otherwise total state of ignorance and failure to comprehend.

I guess i have checked about 20 bands now. ALL of them either released more when they were young than when they were old, or as much (2 of them). If you knew probability theory -- which is abundantly clear by now you don't -- you would have known this can't be mere coincidence.

The cause is not age.

I haven't tried to determine the cause, just prove the trend. Good luck with moving those goalposts .

[Rustycage]

Same old shit.

You are harping over a coincidence. To make something a "law" as you're claiming it should be, you'd need more than that.

This is beyond dumb even arguing your point and I'm tired of repeating myself.

My point has always been to demonstrate that I was correct when I mused that old bands tend to release less frequently than new bands.

Congratulations, you have now discovered what is called a fad in the music industry. The biggest contributor to demand and production.

[Gagarin]

There's also a dynamic that in order to get some money and any kind of cash flow, or some momentum, newer bands/acts will go into the studio and work on another album. The first might have had some traction, or it might have flopped, but they (the label) are going to want to try again and get the fabled GIANT HIT.

When the band goes into the studio they get another advance. It's a little counter-productive because it's an advance against future royalties, but some money now is better than no money over time. That's one reason new acts put out more material more frequently....it's like another line of credit or a new credit card to try and finance you becoming successful, it's another tour, it's another round of merchandise, it's another round of airplay, it's another round of rock press. An established band who can tour and isn't living advance to advance, isn't so worried about getting paid and isn't so worried about needing another hit.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Gagarin

[SoulMonster]

Same old shit.

You are harping over a coincidence. To make something a "law" as you're claiming it should be, you'd need more than that.

The law thing has just been a silly joke. Don't get hung up in it. What I have shown is very strong tendency. Which is what I set out to do, and what you claimed couldn't be found.

This is beyond dumb even arguing your point and I'm tired of repeating myself.

Why don't you try saying something smart for once then?

Congratulations, you have now discovered what is called a fad in the music industry. The biggest contributor to demand and production.

"A fad" As in a temporary phenomena? Eh, have you still not understood that I have been looking at bands active in very different time periods? The Law of Rusty applies to all kinds of bands from the 1950s when bands originated to modern times. It is not a fad but a constant attribute of music bands. As they get old they tend to release albums less frequently. Period. Even my 3 month old daughter who is sitting by me has grasped this now. When will you?

There's also a dynamic that in order to get some money and any kind of cash flow, or some momentum, newer bands/acts will go into the studio and work on another album. The first might have had some traction, or it might have flopped, but they (the label) are going to want to try again and get the fabled GIANT HIT.

When the band goes into the studio they get another advance. It's a little counter-productive because it's an advance against future royalties, but some money now is better than no money over time. That's one reason new acts put out more material more frequently. An established band who can tour and isn't living advance to advance, isn't so worried about getting paid and isn't so worried about needing another hit.

That is interesting. Thank you for this contribution to why the Law of Rusty is such a permeating rule describing the music industry.

[Rustycage]

Are you 16 or something? You act like a teenager that thinks he knows everything even when facts show you to be completely mistaken.

When it's right in front of your face that an "old band" produces less due to less demand and a new band produces less due to less demand, there's no point in repeating your nonsense.

Yay! You finally admitted that old bands release less frequently than new bands! Good on you! (And again, the reasons why are irrelevant.)

You thought you found a gem but really all you found was a COINCIDENCE.

How long was Adam in Paradise? I guess the passing moment of clarity on your behalf displayed above was just a lapse in an otherwise total state of ignorance and failure to comprehend.

I guess i have checked about 20 bands now. ALL of them either released more when they were young than when they were old, or as much (2 of them). If you knew probability theory -- which is abundantly clear by now you don't -- you would have known this can't be mere coincidence.

The cause is not age.

I haven't tried to determine the cause, just prove the trend. Good luck with moving those goalposts .

I'm done. Go learn Economics, kid. It is the constant variable that remains the same throughout all eras of music. Therefore, you must address it in that manner. Only if everyone released music independently from their basement would you be able to dismiss those factors and start pointing to age. Even then, you would have to compare whether band member replacements played a part in delays, tours and announced "breaks" also.

You took a shortcut to thinking and analysis. It was a half-assed effort.

[Rustycage]

There's also a dynamic that in order to get some money and any kind of cash flow, or some momentum, newer bands/acts will go into the studio and work on another album. The first might have had some traction, or it might have flopped, but they (the label) are going to want to try again and get the fabled GIANT HIT.

When the band goes into the studio they get another advance. It's a little counter-productive because it's an advance against future royalties, but some money now is better than no money over time. That's one reason new acts put out more material more frequently....it's like another line of credit or a new credit card to try and finance you becoming successful, it's another tour, it's another round of merchandise, it's another round of airplay, it's another round of rock press. An established band who can tour and isn't living advance to advance, isn't so worried about getting paid and isn't so worried about needing another hit.

You get it. Thank you. Record companies don't fund and push less profitable bands. Older bands are in the nostalgic market and have many more obstacles to face than newer bands. Soul Monster wants to chalk it all up to how old a band is when in fact, it all comes down to popularity and profitability.

Less demand = less funding = less production = even less profit from record sales = a need for more touring = inability to produce a new record fast = less profit for the record company = less funding and promotion = less demand and so on and so on and so on.

The area to look at is the correlation between popularity increase/decrease to production NOT age to production. But everyone already knows that. It's common sense. But common sense seems to take a back seat when you try to defend a band that takes forever to release new material.

[Gagarin]

Well you also have people getting older and no longer being creatively inspired as they were when they were young, or maybe they're not even "into" the kind of music they recorded before.

Staying at home with your family versus getting together with 4-6 other people for months can be hard.

But there's also this - it's just more "profitable" to tour for old acts than it is to record. They can tour and get that money. They don't need to record and might not want to ----- or they all have solo projects and can just put out solo records and play clubs if they want to on the side.

And then there's this, too - one reason why bands END is because they never get that mega string of hits or instant momentum, so after they put out the second record and go on tour there's just no real fan base built up, they're playing small-ish venues, they're breaking even-ish touring, and there's 2 records of material out but it wasn't really pushed on the radio or given time to catch on slowly. At this point there's no way for the band to earn back their advance - playing for 1,000-2,000 people at 20 bucks a pop. The label either drops them or the band breaks up (basically like declaring bankruptcy, because you're in violation of contract at that point, and the record label will keep all the royalties until the debts are paid off). Ever wonder why small new bands hardly make it past 2 albums before breaking up and forming new bands? This is why. Labels need the "opening weekend boxoffice" equivalent, just like the movie studios, there's not enough time for a band by a major to really catch on by word of mouth. The band needs to be in the business of creating a fan-base (which happens slow), but the record company is in the business of creating celebrity and quick buys. A fanbase will support you for a lifetime, celebrity will give you quick money (sometimes), and then you'll be broke...or if you fail at celebrity, then you just lived like a rock-star on borrowed money.

I'm not saying either of you are right, it's just there's a lot of factors.

And of course younger acts are more lucrative. There's more money to be made with the least investment. A 100,000 guarantee advance to an indie band with touring support and merchandise "help" is giant. The Eagles? You need to add a zero or two, and they sure as hell don't want or need you taking points of merchandise and ticket receipts.

[Rustycage]

Well you also have people getting older and no longer being creatively inspired as they were when they were young, or maybe they're not even "into" the kind of music they recorded before.

Staying at home with your family versus getting together with 4-6 other people for months can be hard.

Possibly but the last 2 reasons are by choice, not consequence. To make something some "law" that this all originated from, it would need to be a concrete reason.

But there's also this - it's just more "profitable" to tour for old acts than it is to record. They can tour and get that money. They don't need to record and might not want to ----- or they all have solo projects and can just put out solo records and play clubs if they want to on the side.

And then there's this, too - one reason why bands END is because they never get that mega string of hits or instant momentum, so after they put out the second record and go on tour there's just no real fan base built up, they're playing small-ish venues, they're breaking even-ish touring, and there's 2 records of material out but it wasn't really pushed on the radio or given time to catch on slowly. At this point there's no way for the band to earn back their advance - playing for 1,000-2,000 people at 20 bucks a pop. The label either drops them or the band breaks up (basically like declaring bankruptcy, because you're in violation of contract at that point, and the record label will keep all the royalties until the debts are paid off). Ever wonder why small new bands hardly make it past 2 albums before breaking up and forming new bands? This is why. Labels need the "opening weekend boxoffice" equivalent, just like the movie studios, there's not enough time for a band by a major to really catch on by word of mouth. The band needs to be in the business of creating a fan-base (which happens slow), but the record company is in the business of creating celebrity and quick buys. A fanbase will support you for a lifetime, celebrity will give you quick money (sometimes), and then you'll be broke...or if you fail at celebrity, then you just lived like a rock-star on borrowed money.

I'm not saying either of you are right, it's just there's a lot of factors.

And of course younger acts are more lucrative. There's more money to be made with the least investment. A 100,000 guarantee advance to an indie band with touring support and merchandise "help" is giant. The Eagles? You need to add a zero or two, and they sure as hell don't want or need you taking points of merchandise and ticket receipts.

There are more variables than that.

Temporary breakups

Illness

Member replacement

Planned breaks

On top of what I already mentioned. It would be a lazy effort to just look at release date numbers and conclude that it's simply because of age. There is way too much to factor to come to a conclusion so fast. To even start, the playing field has to be level but the methods going on by another in this topic have just been ignoring more important factors.

The whole age thing is a coincidence more than a general rule. It's not surprising that a band's production goes down after they have already reached their prime. One hit wonders still produce for years after but it slows down because of things that don't include age.

Instead of going: "Why do old bands not produce as much? Oh it must be age."

It should be: "Why do ALL bands see a decrease in production?" Finding the common denominator makes the most sense.

Otherwise, it is just cherry picking nonsense.

[SoulMonster]

I'm not saying either of you are right, it's just there's a lot of factors.

Are you seriously going to claim I am wrong when I say that bands that have been active for a long time tend to release albums less frequently? I am shocked. You can't be having paid much attention to what this discussion is about.

RustyCage: You can try to conceal the fact that you now understand that I was correct in assuming that older bands release albums less frequently than younger bands by harping on about the irrelevant reasons for why this is so, but don't except anyone to fail for this pathetic attempt at moving the goalposts. People here tend to be smarter than you. Ooh, I see the outlines of a new law

[Rustycage]

You should just drop it. You can't argue with reality.

If you want to be a simpleton, sure. Older bands that are less popular release less frequently. Also, new bands that don't maintain popularity release less frequently.

You've thrown intelligence completely out of the window to defend an elementary analysis.

Also:

FACT - A huge percentage of the bands in your example can still produce much faster than GNR.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

clearly, the problem is that fans' expectations have been too high.

[SoulMonster]

To make something some "law" that this all originated from, it would need to be a concrete reason.

Haha, no, you don't have to understand the mechanistic explanation for why things are the way they are to make a law about it. There are numerous examples from physics where we have laws describing some constant attribute of the natural world and where we have absolutely no clues about the mechanisms. The Law of Rusty is purely descriptive, not explanatory.

Instead of going: "Why do old bands not produce as much? Oh it must be age."

Oh no, don't you try to twist my statement this way. My claim was and is that "old bands tend to release albums less frequently than young bands". I never ever claimed it was because the bands were old. By now you really should understand the difference between correlation and causality. You are utterly confused about this very simple thing or -- and I don't know what is worse -- dishonestly attempting to move the goalposts as to make this a discussion about the whys and not the whats. In fact, I have at at least three times in earlier posts humoured you by considering a few possible explanations for why old bands tend to be less productive, but -- and I repeat myself ad nauseum, but that is the modus operandi when trying to penetrate the minds of people like you -- this is all irrelevant to my original statement which you disagreed with.

It should be: "Why do ALL bands see a decrease in production?" Finding the common denominator makes the most sense.

It's so funny to see that you have now embrace the Law of Rusty so warmingly that you even use it in your own entertaining attempts at making this discussion about why bands release less as they get older and not whether they do. Keep this up, RustyCage, for a few more pages and maybe a small fraction of the readers might actually believe you. Persistence and stubbornness might compensate for a lack of brains!

If you want to be a simpleton, sure. Older bands that are less popular release less frequently. Also, new bands that don't maintain popularity release less frequently.

ALL the older bands that were checked released less frequently .

FACT - A huge percentage of the bands in your example can still produce much faster than GNR.

Eh, none of the bands checked were active anymore, so I doubt it. Please picture me holding a hand over my eyes while shaking my sunken head slowly.

Edited August 20, 2012 by SoulMonster

[Rustycage]

Blah blah blah. I hope you never take any LEAN courses. Take the last word. I know how much you need it. It seems to be more valuable to you than actually learning about what you are talking about.

[chevelle]

I would be satisfied if the band that got me into music released or gave some concrete hope of releasing music once in a while.

[vaida]

NO!

[Gagarin]

They do -in general- tend to release less over time. Causation, correlation, I cannot say. There's no rule, but you can look at trends and pick it apart.

Popularity is a fuzzy term, I'd like to point out.

Is popularity media attention and pop culture recognition?

Is it measured by sales and tour grosses? These can be different things.

Sure, less popularity, less releases - in general.

But some established acts, who are popular, aren't releasing often either.

DSOTM would out-sell "popular" current hit albums, but Pink Floyd wasn't producing like gangbusters, and neither was Roger Waters.

Roger's did millions and millions of business with The Wall the last few years, but he's not putting out solo work, either.

(On the other hand, they have been re-issuing crazy box sets).

U2's release pace has slowed, but they're grossing like crazy.

[Iron MikeyJ]

I can only speak for myself but I am moderatly satisfied. Sure I could be happier, but I cant bitch to much. I am one of the select few that apparently really like cd. As a whole I like it better than lies and tsi and it is equal to the illusions. You may disagree all you want, thats the beauty of opinion. If the illusions were one album of 15 killer songs it would be better than appitite imo. But as is appetite 10, illusions 1, 2, cd 8.5-9 lies 8, tsi live era 7.5. And the band has toured nonstop since what 09'. Thats pretty fucking good, I'll take that over the dark years of 96-06. That was a hard time. I lived through that, if I get another gnr album eventually I'll will be happy. A reunioun would be amazing but you know.

[SoulMonster]

Blah blah blah. I hope you never take any LEAN courses. Take the last word.

Why, thank you.

So to summarize: It started when I claimed that "older bands tend to release less frequently" (#6), to which you responded, "There is no "obvious" trend when speaking in broad terms of MUSIC" (#38) and followed up with "You claim it, you prove it." Okay, I did just that. I looked at a few dozen bands from various time period and genres who had been around for many years, and compared their frequency of album releases when they were new to when they were old, effectively demonstrating that yes, old bands do release less frequently (see #40, #49, #55, #63 and #73) After trying to reject my evidence because you failed to understand it in numerous ways (see #45, #48 and #50), you then started to try to move the goalposts by claiming that I meant that old bands release less because they are old, something I never claimed. This wild goose chase continued for quite a while until you finally admitted that indeed old bands release less frequent (#76 and #87) while still trying to narrow it down to only bands who have become less popular. Thank you for the entertainment.