How long should an artist wait to release an album

[dbt88]

Okay, so how long do you prefer an era to last before the artist releases another album? Some artist like Christina releases albums too far apart for most people, then there are artists like Eminem, who has released 2 albums in one year and is rumored to release a "filler" next year and Rihanna most esp, that has twice released albums within a year. So what's your opinion in this matter?

[Deleted]

6 months after the last single from the previous project went recurrent/got purged or 18 months-2 years from the previous release (which ever comes first ).

[MiniMusic]

I'm not gonna say this just because I'm a Britney stan but I think she releases the most perfectly in between albums. Every album was released in a good time frame away from the last one.

[dbt88]

Nov 14, 2010 12:23:22 GMT -5 MiniMusic said:

I'm not gonna say this just because I'm a Britney stan but I think she releases the most perfectly in between albums. Every album was released in a good time frame away from the last one.

I would like to say the same but Circus could've been pushed back or released earlier imo considering it only had 3 singles.

But I agree with her first 4 albums being released at the right time and spaced long enough.

I'm just concerned about artists releasing EPs/re-releases to prolong an era or releasing an album at such a fast rate then the music is not cohesive.

[dbt88]

Nov 14, 2010 12:21:19 GMT -5 @drag27 said:

6 months after the last single from the previous project went recurrent/got purged or 18 months-2 years from the previous release (which ever comes first ).

This exactly. I was thinking have the album run for 18-24 months til releasing another album if you released 4 singles that is

[LegendaryLover]

5 ~ 15 months after the last single peaked and fell off the charts.

But now artists are taking longer breaks, the only person I see taking short breaks is Rihanna.

[josuem1415]

Depends, some people should be forced to take long breaks. We had enough Swift TBQH.

[Lozzy]

Depends on who it is. If some flop artist has one flop single and then disappears, they can have a new album in 4 months. If they have 6 #1 smash singles, then they should wait longer. All depends!

[Deleted]

As often as they want, however when it comes to radio saturation, if they've been getting decent airplay for ~12-18 months they should have at least a 6 month break from radio.

[neverduplicated]

I don't think you can really force creativity. Sometimes artists are on a roll and sometimes they come up with nothing for years. I'd rather get no album than a crappy album released just to fulfill contractual obligations. That said, I of course like it when my favs release albums very often. Mariah's had 13 studio albums in 20 years which is just incredible and has certainly kept me stanning for her. My favorite band Silverchair hasn't released an album since 2007 and it's uncertain whether they'll release next year, and it's making me sad. So, I stick by what I said about being inspired to make music, but more than 3 years just gets irritating.

[Deleted]

This is silly. There's no exact science to it.

[lolhey]

Eh I agree that it varies from case to case, but I do think that people who have massive albums and who place out an album again within less than 12 months is kinda of pushing it. Usually in those kinds of cases I think they should at least wait 18 months. Then again if someone flops and they are trying to do a recovery (and the material is much better then the flopped material) I can see why things are rushed in those circumstances.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Nov 16, 2010 3:01:19 GMT -5 LegendaryLover said:

But now artists are taking longer breaks, the only person I see taking short breaks is Rihanna.

Compared to when? I find they aren't taking as long between albums.

[Chelsea Press 2]

There is no set amount of time in-between that every artist should wait to release an album. Certain things do have to be considered.

As others have mentioned, if an artist releases a new album and the lead single flops, and the second single does, then they should reconsider whether they should continue with that particular era. If they decide not to, then they have to decide on recording something and releasing it real soon, or taking a little longer. Especially if they are concerned about becoming irrelevant, they shouldn't take too long. But recording an album of half-assed desperate material for the sole purpose of remaining relevant, may end up doing additional harm and then they would be in the same sort of situation all over again (Christina, Mariah, etc come to mind here)

If an artist has become way overexposed and is at risk of a backlash from that, they need to take a little longer. But if they are afraid of suddenly becoming irrelevant after being so hot especially if the new material disappoints (I know it's a bit of a paradox but this can happen), then the break should be long enough, but not too long but not too long (Lady Gaga and Beyonce come to mind here)

If an artist is doing pretty well, but isn't at the risk of overexposure, they can take a little less of a break (like Rihanna did after her second and third albums).

If an artist has flopped multiple times in a row, then they must proceed with great caution. Taking some time away to let them get off the radar would be a good start. That could be a few months to a few years. Doing a feature or two could help set the stage for the next album. If that works, then they could try again. However, this could all backfire again. Then all hope is lost. Ashanti and Jennifer Lopez are great examples of this.

[neverduplicated]

I don't believe in overexposure. History has shown that if the public love an artist, they can release and release and it's only a good thing. The Beatles released 13 studio albums including a double album from 1963-1970. That's practically two albums per year! And yet the public didn't seem to tire of it (and still isn't tired of it). Mariah released an album every year of the 90's except 1996 and she stayed extremely successful throughout. It used to be common for artists to release albums constantly. Barbra Streisand released 23 studio albums from 1963-1980 as well as eight soundtracks, two live albums, and two compilation albums (for a total of 35 albums in 18 years). Ray Charles released 41 studio albums from 1957-1975 as well as 7 compilation albums. Releasing albums like that is just unheard of today.

[Mack]

Nov 16, 2010 3:04:33 GMT -5 @josuem1415 said:

Depends, some people should be forced to take long breaks. We had enough Swift TBQH.

Her albums have each been released 2 years apart. I'd say that's enough.

[Chelsea Press 2]

Nov 17, 2010 6:09:38 GMT -5 neverduplicated said:

I don't believe in overexposure. History has shown that if the public love an artist, they can release and release and it's only a good thing. The Beatles released 13 studio albums including a double album from 1963-1970. That's practically two albums per year! And yet the public didn't seem to tire of it (and still isn't tired of it). Mariah released an album every year of the 90's except 1996 and she stayed extremely successful throughout. It used to be common for artists to release albums constantly. Barbra Streisand released 23 studio albums from 1963-1980 as well as eight soundtracks, two live albums, and two compilation albums (for a total of 35 albums in 18 years). Ray Charles released 41 studio albums from 1957-1975 as well as 7 compilation albums. Releasing albums like that is just unheard of today.

True, but that was also a different time--before the internet. Performances on TV shows did happen, but it feels like some are on nearly every show and it can be too much sometimes.

[Rurry]

It really depends on a lot of different factors.

[NLP Is an Aphrodite]

Nov 16, 2010 3:04:33 GMT -5 @josuem1415 said:

Depends, some people should be forced to take long breaks. We had enough Swift TBQH.

Heard dat.

I agree, about 6 months after the final single has gone recurrent, that's a good line of best fit.

But, if you have a smaller album that fits well with the previous one, such as Fame Monster, the first single from the new album can be released as if the two albums were the same, with the new album's release about 4 weeks later.

[hidizzyguy]

I think two years is the perfect break in between albums.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

I think if you're coming off of a massive album, why not hold onto the momentum by having an immediate followup. Otherwise, a good few seasons should separate records and singles.

[K.]

As long as they need to to come up with good material. There is no such thing as "overexposure." Huge artists only flop because they start rushing material out, not because the public gets tired of hearing good music from them.

[atlantaboy]

Nov 17, 2010 21:30:32 GMT -5 K. said:

Huge artists only flop because they start rushing material out, not because the public gets tired of hearing good music from them.

[Gaz@NokiaMusic]

I think if artists could release an album a year, the world would be a better place.

[Joe1240]

2 Years between Albums is perfect.I like the way Taylor Swift does this.Perfect timing and release. :)

[banet2001]

It all really depends on the artist and the age of the artist. On average, the peak years for an artist is between the years of 23 to 27 and the absolute peak years tend to be around 25 to 27. Young artists really need to capitalize on the peak years and release as much material as he/she/they can during that limited time period. You will only be 23 - 27 once, so take advantage if that limited time you have by released as much good material as you can in those years. Christina Aguilera mis-managed her peak years and only released Back To Basics during that time period. It cannot be much of a surprise that her followup, which was released after her prime years, does not measure up to Back to Basic. She lost her opportunity to make a bigger mark in the music industry by failing to release much material during her prime years and she will never get those years back.

The likes of Britney Spears and Rihanna have been doing the right thing, that is continuously releasing new material during their peak years. If you want to take a break from the music industry, take it once you reach the age of 28 and after that you can take several years in between albums, especially well established artists who don't have the pressure of needing to keep the album sales machine going.

[hidizzyguy]

Here's something I've beent hinking about - feel free to disagree, and school me on this:

If you're an artist whos music is mostly produced and written by hired industry folk - yes, it's important to rush material out. Those people are your hitmakers, and they're constantly working - even after your album is done. So, if you wanna keep up with trends, or take a good song they're working on before they pass it on to others artists, then, yes, you gotta keep going and going and going. So, their albums usually produce quick, big hits, but them the album quality suffers.

Artists that tend to be more in control of their own music production seem like they're the ones that take a lil longer to come out with music. Taylor Swift, Kanye, Jay-Z, John Legend, Pink, Mariah, Alicia, these artists go through writing processes, take long sessions in the studio, use live instrumentation, take time to travel and record in resort locations for inspiration, and re-record vocals a lot, it seems like. They probably don't necessarily have quick, big HUGE hits (with the exception of Taylor), but their albums are usually big events and the quality is usually solid throughout.

But then you have your Britneys and Beyonces that, while they still need the help of producers, and writers, have an EAR for what's hot, and what suits their style best, and what they'll be able to perform on stage. They can afford the best beats, the best producers, and the best writers, but, can easily pass up a song to someone else cause they know they're own style even though they can't necessarily produce their own melodies or hooks, etc. So they're able to have hot albums, big hits, but, the quality of their albums aren't necessarily huge talent acclaimed pieces of work - though they are usually a big hit with the masses.

Is that kinda how it works? These are just generalizations I have noticed.

[HereIsGone]

Personally, I think a 2, 2.5 year gap between albums is great but I'd know better than to expect it since nobody (or at least most artists) is making money off CD sales, leading artists to go out on the road for a longer time to make a living. I will say that it sucks hardcore that my favorite band has taken 4 years to make their last two albums so I'm pretty much pleased as punch whenever other artists can get it out sooner. :)

[singingrulebritannia]

I was sure I posted in here?

I think what I posted was, wait until you have at least an album and an EP's worth of purposeful, worthwhile material.

[Devin]

2-3 years between each album, around 8 months after the last single from the previous album has peaked and fell off the chart.