Cosmo Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 What do you guys think is the ideal period of time a band should take between two albums nowadays? I'd say one every three years or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacardimayne Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 about that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bran Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 i think 3-5 years is pretty good. it is just different for certain bands, waiting 6-10+ years for an album isnt all that uncommon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Bond Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Three or four years seems pretty comfortable. Two years on between recording and touring, then two years off. That'd be a decent schedule and not overkill as far as pumping out album after album. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevelle Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Two to three years. Any longer than that and I tend to lose track of bands in favor of newer ones I'm listening to, but then again, that always delivers the "oh shit, those guys have a new album? Cool" effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) Roughly 3 years. Enough for a big tour, a period of rest and time to work on it.I often criticize GnR for their release schedule (or lack thereof), but the opposite annoys me too. Artists that put out a new album at least every year with some having mediocre quality. Despite that I love his music overall, Joe Bonamassa is an example.Even worse is Buckethead putting out multiple albums a year. It just annoys me and it creates a very large inconsistent body of work. Edited January 28, 2013 by username Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Drama Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 1-2 years. You gotta pump them out in your prime so that way when you eventually become a nostalgia act you'll have a rich classic era that's critically acclaimed and there to dig through for your audiences. See The Rolling Stones vs Guns N' Roses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 10-20 years. Any band that thinks they can put out meaningful product every few years is insane. Youve got be writing total classics to impact the ipod. An album basically gets reduced to a cherry picked song. So every 10 years you can put out an album of singles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicrawker Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 As I am older then most on this forum I remember when bands put out 1 album a year and in some csaes more then one album a year so when I hear the argument that 3-5 years is about right it reminds me how much the music industry has changed...If a band went 2 years or more between albums back in the day it was a big deal and would spark rumours of a problems in the band......Personally I think the way Slash is doing it is about right in todays music market...an album every couple of years to keep things fresh for the next tour............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron_H Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Taylor Swift seems to do fine with an album every 2 years. Love her or hate her, she's the ideal act in the modern music industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izzygirl Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 ^ Ok, anyone else saw that coming? I think 3 years is perfect between albums. Long enough for the band but at the same time fans don't have to wait too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Depends on how hot they are at the time, but I wish bands would put non-album singles out through the year and just put an album out to listen to as a whole. That's how a lot of bands in the 60s did, and The Smiths did it that way in the 80s, where they would just compile the singles and put that out. Older artists can get away with 4-5 years between releases, but 3 is ideal. A year to put the album and videos together, a year and a half to do a tour for it, and then do a Deluxe Edition at the end and cram it with video, concert footage, and have the option to buy the CD or take your copy and put it in there kind of like the Bond 50 where they left a space for Skyfall.... Maybe sales of the DVD will be the deciding factor on Axl going back in the studio instead of doing another leg. I think the band's been more than ready to do it, but Axl has to be the one to bring it together and make it happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Taylor Swift seems to do fine with an album every 2 years. Love her or hate her, she's the ideal act in the modern music industry.She's an easy sell to teenage mallrat girls going through a breakup, it has to run its course at some point. People are getting tired of the news being about who she broke up with and what song she's going to write about them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Depends on how hot they are at the time, but I wish bands would put non-album singles out through the year and just put an album out to listen to as a whole. That's how a lot of bands in the 60s did, and The Smiths did it that way in the 80s, where they would just compile the singles and put that out.Older artists can get away with 4-5 years between releases, but 3 is ideal. A year to put the album and videos together, a year and a half to do a tour for it, and then do a Deluxe Edition at the end and cram it with video, concert footage, and have the option to buy the CD or take your copy and put it in there kind of like the Bond 50 where they left a space for Skyfall....Maybe sales of the DVD will be the deciding factor on Axl going back in the studio instead of doing another leg. I think the band's been more than ready to do it, but Axl has to be the one to bring it together and make it happen.a Live DVD/blu ray seems like it could promo the tour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) everyone has a shorter attention span. hardly anyone is going to sit down and listen to a cd. So what Ron was saying about releasing songs before a tour or every month could be great experience. sure to cause panic across the net. Every month a new song, a great time to be a fan. with a final release of a cd. If the songs are wildly eclectic nobody could really say "I've heard that one song, whole record will suck". Especially if they can hit the production values of AFD, UYI, CD on different tracks. Holy shit this sounds like AFD, wow a bit like Dead Horse, ok this is Shackler's type thing from Bucket.yeah, I think the album is dead. Only a few bands can really a command that kind of attention. And they have been out for 10-20 years. Edited January 29, 2013 by wasted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bran Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 the EP has become a very popular thing. a lot of bands will put out 1 or 2 EP's before they put out a full length sometimes. Iam a pretty big fan of EP's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Two year. The Beatles managed two albums per year up until 1966, then one per year thereafter. Appreciating the fact that modern albums are long, I suggest that two years are perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovim Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 At least 20 years. More, if you think you can improve it by adding Bumbles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Drama Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Two year. The Beatles managed two albums per year up until 1966, then one per year thereafter. Appreciating the fact that modern albums are long, I suggest that two years are perfect.This. They really had nothing left to achieve when they finished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicrawker Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) So what Ron was saying about releasing songs before a tour or every month could be great experience. sure to cause panic across the net.lol, Panic across the net?..........Maybe on the fan forums but across the internet? I don't think so as that ship sailed for Axl long ago............. Edited January 29, 2013 by classicrawker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 So what Ron was saying about releasing songs before a tour or every month could be great experience. sure to cause panic across the net.lol, Panic across the net?..........Maybe on the fan forums but across the internet? I don't think so as that ship sailed for Axl long ago.............I wonder to myself...back off topic, do bands really make good albums anymore? Does anyone have that ambition? most just put some songs on a cd. They aren't molding a listening experience are they? Hardly anyone really did it so it does matter how we get the songs really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicrawker Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 So what Ron was saying about releasing songs before a tour or every month could be great experience. sure to cause panic across the net.lol, Panic across the net?..........Maybe on the fan forums but across the internet? I don't think so as that ship sailed for Axl long ago.............I wonder to myself...back off topic, do bands really make good albums anymore? Does anyone have that ambition? most just put some songs on a cd. They aren't molding a listening experience are they? Hardly anyone really did it so it does matter how we get the songs really.I am old school and prefer complete physical albums I can hold in my hand but with digital downloads the young generation now seems to prefer picking and choosing what songs they buy so physical media is dying a slow death........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron_H Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Taylor Swift seems to do fine with an album every 2 years. Love her or hate her, she's the ideal act in the modern music industry.She's an easy sell to teenage mallrat girls going through a breakup, it has to run its course at some point. People are getting tired of the news being about who she broke up with and what song she's going to write about them.She's capitalising on her success, so what? I think she's well aware that even the best acts have a date after which they struggle to stay relevant so I can hardly blame her for trying to earn as much as possible while she can. Plus, she's always struck me as the type of artist who spends a lot of time writing new material, I think she's probably happy for the chance to be able to release albums at regular intervals.For the record, I don't read the news and/or care about who she's dating or breaking up with (I'm sure a lot of that is just for show so that at least people believe her when she writes songs about xyz), but I do agree that it is annoying if you are constantly having that information rammed down your throat. I'm willing to guess that she doesn't enjoy having all of her life in the newspapers too. (A song on her most recent album hints at that too) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 So what Ron was saying about releasing songs before a tour or every month could be great experience. sure to cause panic across the net.lol, Panic across the net?..........Maybe on the fan forums but across the internet? I don't think so as that ship sailed for Axl long ago.............I wonder to myself...back off topic, do bands really make good albums anymore? Does anyone have that ambition? most just put some songs on a cd. They aren't molding a listening experience are they? Hardly anyone really did it so it does matter how we get the songs really.I am old school and prefer complete physical albums I can hold in my hand but with digital downloads the young generation now seems to prefer picking and choosing what songs they buy so physical media is dying a slow death...........I prefer a real cd. It's kind of funny to feel nostalgia for cds bcos they are cheap hookers compared to vinyl. but I probably am myself at the point where I'd just copy it onto iTunes and never look at the booklet. unless it's Guns and I'd pore over it for hidden meanings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Two years. There is no reason that anyone with the talent to make one good album shouldn't be able to make another one within a two-year period. No reason at all.I agree 100%.On this forum, to defend Axl's lack of interest in releasing music, a group has made the writing and recording process seem like some big huge top-secret mystical event where it has to take an artist at least 5-to-10 years to write a decent album. And any band that releases new music every couple of years is STRICTLY doing it for the cash and is ripping off their fans.There is NO reason that somebody as talented as Axl, teaming up with the prolific DJ and BBF (I don't know which of the rest of the band is known for their song writing abilities) couldn't write 10 quality songs a year.People on here (again, just to defend Axl) say they'd rather get one brilliant album like CD every 20 years than get 10 crappy albums over 20 years. First off - that is an insult to their God Axl Rose. They think Axl can only write crap unless he has 20 years to work on it?????? Second, a song has no formula. A timeless, brilliant song can be written in an evening!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Or it could take 5 years of tinkering. Axl and the boys could spend three months in the studio and produce the best album of the decade. A song doesn't have to be worked on for years and years, and it doesn't have to be tinkered with and redone and messed with for years and years. I would even suggest that a lot of the best songs ever written were done the complete opposite. They didn't take 8 years of working on them. A guy with a piano or accoustic guitar and a broken heart can pump out a masterpiece in a weekend.Would you rather have CD................or would you rather Axl had released seven albums in the last 20 years? Would those 7 albums have some fillers? Yes, no doubt. But Axl's fillers are better than most of the crap that is out there now. And, those 100 songs (7 albums) would not doubt have a TON of great classic songs on them.Hopefully someday Team Brazil and Axl will decide to share his music with his millions of fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.