are modern day bands lazy?

dunkman

i was going through my cd collection last night and i was thinking about how many years the Beatles were together and how many albums they made in that short 7 or 8 years... plus 4 films!!!

and then i was looking at the Rolling Stones, Bowie, etc and they just had a phenomenal output... and the only modern band i can think of doing that kinda output these days is The White Stripes... PJ take 2ish years to give us an album and the Beatles would have had 2 or 3 out in between that.


ok its not laziness, but what do you think is the reason for this happening? White Stripes have shown that its not the rigours of touring or whatever cos they (well Jack at least) provides an album of music every year or two (WS and Raconteurs)

thoughts?

Julien

bands now make longer tours, no ?
There is also more marketing like "album release in 6 months.." They make us wait too much...
and maybe the records are better quality now. I mean, maybe it's longer to record something now than before. But neil Young and Springsteen still released one album every year.. so, yes, maybe new bands are a bit lazy...

MattCameronKicksButt

I may be a little biased because I don't listen to much modern music but I'm thinking maybe (maybe) it's a lack of passion. That most bands don't care enough to keep creating music, other than to keep their bank balance topped up.
I told you I was cynical!

Or maybe it is just laziness?

Jeanie

It's a different climate now.

Back in the day EVERYTHING was new and interesting. Much harder to be new and interesting now. Plus the music industry has changed so much.

I like that it's come from where it has and that it is where it is.

dunkman

Julien wrote:

bands now make longer tours, no ?
There is also more marketing like "album release in 6 months.." They make us wait too much...
and maybe the records are better quality now. I mean, maybe it's longer to record something now than before. But neil Young and Springsteen still released one album every year.. so, yes, maybe new bands are a bit lazy...

yeah i was thinking that.... world tours and all.. but then i looked into the Beatles touring schedule and it was phenomenal... sometimes 2 shows on the same day!!! (Budokan in Japan for instance) but normally it was 8 months of touring and only 1 day off every 10 or something.

records might be better quality but the albums from the 70's still sound great in my ears... sometimes even more so... i.e. Led Zep III sounds better than say Avocado imo..

even Led Zep were frequent with their albums and Sir Jimmy of Page is a notorious perfectionist.. and those boys toured like fuckers as well.

i dunno.. its maybe just a new climate... but i can think of only White Stripes who fit that old style vein... i mean Icky Thump was recorded in under 3 weeks... PJ took that long to do Aye Davanita

Julien

Ben Harper releases many albums, which are also recorder quickly (a week or two for the last album and only 3 days for his album with the blinf boys of alabama)

dunkman

Julien wrote:

Ben Harper releases many albums, which are also recorder quickly (a week or two for the last album and only 3 days for his album with the blinf boys of alabama)

i was looking more into bands/artists that were good

aye ok... but back in the sixties and 70's bands just seemed more productive... maybe not, but it seems that way

even flow?

The attention span of the average fan added to the marketing of MTV and the record companies make for a one album wonder. It has nothing to do with lazyness at all. By the time a big hit maker has finished touring and put a new album out they are all but forgotten by the average joe who thought they were god's gift to music. That is why you see many a band do the bar tour for their ep or first independent album. Then get the hit album that is pushed and pushed and pushed and do the stadium tour. The record company is happy and then the next album comes out and it does zip and they are back to playing the bars again. Two cents.

How many bands in the last 10 years we will say, have had three big selling albums and tours. Not too many.

FinsburyParkCarrots

Bands aren't lazy. Record companies are.

dunkman

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

Bands aren't lazy. Record companies are.

but take PJ or Radiohead... no record companies to deal with (as such) and yet they take 3 years between albums?

i suppose its futile drawing comparisons with the Beatles, but they just made record after record... and that was most likely at the behest of the record company... John writing Help in under 3 days for the film soundtrack being a notable point in case...

josevolution

dunkman wrote:

yeah i was thinking that.... world tours and all.. but then i looked into the Beatles touring schedule and it was phenomenal... sometimes 2 shows on the same day!!! (Budokan in Japan for instance) but normally it was 8 months of touring and only 1 day off every 10 or something.

records might be better quality but the albums from the 70's still sound great in my ears... sometimes even more so... i.e. Led Zep III sounds better than say Avocado imo..

even Led Zep were frequent with their albums and Sir Jimmy of Page is a notorious perfectionist.. and those boys toured like fuckers as well.

i dunno.. its maybe just a new climate... but i can think of only White Stripes who fit that old style vein... i mean Icky Thump was recorded in under 3 weeks... PJ took that long to do Aye Davanita

yeah i have to agree bands these days just don't put out as much as the old time rockers did specially when it comes to touring ....

MattCameronKicksButt

Maybe you've just answered your own question. Perhaps some are just lazy.

FinsburyParkCarrots

dunkman wrote:

but take PJ or Radiohead... no record companies to deal with (as such) and yet they take 3 years between albums?

i suppose its futile drawing comparisons with the Beatles, but they just made record after record... and that was most likely at the behest of the record company... John writing Help in under 3 days for the film soundtrack being a notable point in case...

I still say record labels are complacent enough these days, not to drive bands into the ground too early. Back in the 1960s, although there were critics talking of aeolian cadences in Beatles songs, record companies thought pop was a fad that would end tomorrow. People weren't thinking 15 year contracts in those days. Bands were worked a lot harder, and managers and record companies were a hell of a lot less scrupulous. Bands were crammed with uppers and other stimulants and were pushed to the limits, physically and mentally. It might have inspired some manic spell of creativity, but as we see from Lennon's post-Imagine output, it eventually ensured burnout too.

One also has to admit, well, The Beatles were using facilities in Abbey Road that were even for their time considered obsolete. Their first five albums use a lot of pre-four track equipment, plus there are a lot of cover versions. Sure, recording would be quicker, and you could get more material done for the budget time. Even when they got more time to write, after they quit touring, they were still under unbelievable pressures (Epstein being a shit manager, Epstein dying, the Apple fiasco, clowns like Magic Alex, the Eastman/Klein battle of wills). Different times.

Now, record companies have established artists with multi-decade careers ensuring revenue; artists rely more on touring to make money anyway; so, there's no need to push for lots of recorded product.

Another thought: if you think The Beatles recorded a lot of product, you should look at John Coltrane's recorded output in 1965. His music was physically and mentally punishing, to the extreme. And he was touring heavily, too. He was dead by 1967:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDa0MrJT6KY

The Severed Hand

From what I can observe being I'm only twenty-two years of age, bands these days are typically producing albums on a two year cycle. When time is added into the equation and more than two years pass before another album is released, the albums seem to be more thought out and experimental. The Beatles went strong for less than ten years. The modern music seems to be slightly more technical and production is a more time consuming process as well compared to the 60's. Now record companies/artists have to combat on-line piracy by having CD/DVD combos and tons of features to make the album worthwhile to the conusmer. Is the purity of music hanging in the balance?

RyeGuy

With the lagging record sales it takes longer for the label to come up with the capital needed to make new albums.

Drowned Out

When we're talking mainstream bands that record companies promote heavily, I think a lot of this has to do with marketing. If a record company pushes hard to have 5 singles released and played in heavy rotation, the album could stay charted for over a year....the record company would rather milk one album for all it's worth, then let some anticipation build before releasing another...if they were still on single #3 when the second album came out, they would lose sales on both albums, and eventually their would be a public backlash from oversaturation.

That said, it seems like the record companies will only allow established bands the luxury of this anticipation...they seem to push a lot of newer, more commercial bands in a continuous assault until the public completely rejects them, then both toss them aside.

I think the record companies control release dates a lot more than the bands....a label might sit on an album for months (until christmas, for example)...or they might put serious pressure on a band to have an album finished by a specific date.

LukinFan

I blame MTV. "Video killed the radio star"

jamie uk

Bands are more aware now that they only have so much creativity, and they try and make it last. It's business, politics if you like, that's what I'd say. Plus MTV and such has definitely spoiled it, when I was a teenager we got all the bands playing in Cardiff, they knew thay had to do the proper UK tour to expose themselves to us, so that we'd buy their records. Now they just get the video on MTV and fly over and do Wembley, or Reading, or something similar, and sell just as many. I'd say PJ were pretty lazy, they've done less than 100 gigs since that last album came out 18 months or so back.

lisam

MattCameronKicksButt wrote:

I may be a little biased because I don't listen to much modern music but I'm thinking maybe (maybe) it's a lack of passion. That most bands don't care enough to keep creating music, other than to keep their bank balance topped up.
I told you I was cynical!

Or maybe it is just laziness?

Im kind of with you on this one. I love my classics, The Doors, Lou Reed, Bowie, Janis, Hendrix and they did seem alot more passionate about their music.

And id say cash does have a place but all those artists probably wouldn't have worked as hard as they did if they weren't getting screwed over by managers, record companies etc. The literally HAD to pump out the albums to survive. Now a band can make in one album what these guys made in a entire career.