Rnadom Thought- Too Much Time Between Albums

[DuckHead]

Does anyone else think that 2-3 years is too long in between albums? For instance, I waited for two years for Avril's new album, bought it the day it came out, listened to it many times, and now... I have to wait 2 more years for another one. That's a long wait. I think artists should release an album at least every year. That's what they used to do in the 70s and such. I would actually rather have one album with 8 songs on it each year, than one album with 12 songs on it every two years.

There's nothing to lose for an artist to do that anyway. They'd sell double the albums, and make double the money. They could still tour every 2-3 years like usual. They could just make all the songs at one time like they do now, just save 10 or so for an album to be released 6 months after the original album. It would keep an artist fresh, and give fans of artists more albums to look forward to.

It would excite me (as an Avril fan) to have another Avril album to look forward to in 6-12 months. Instead, I have to wait 2 years or so. It's kind of depressing. 12 songs every two years is not enough song for the wait, I think. If you take a long time to make an album, you should put 20 or so songs on it like Shania Twain did.

[Sean]

It's not quantity it's all about quality. As long as they release GOOD albums I don't mind waiting.

Ideally, I'd say an album every 2 years is a good time period. It gives enough time for 3-5 singles, a tour, a break from the artist and then by the time they come back it's all exciting again.

If they released an album every 1 year it would just become too common place and not as exciting.

[WhySoSerious?]

An album every year is too much. It never gives you a chance to miss the artist.

The anticipation of new music is half the fun anyway.

[M]

TCorey said:

The anticipation of new music is half the fun and half the torture.

[Rob64]

No way, artists who release albums every year are annoying. I like it when they take their time between albums. Tour, take a rest, take your time writting new songs. 2 - 3 years between albums is good.

[Deleted]

Sean said:

It's not quantity it's all about quality. As long as they release GOOD albums I don't mind waiting.

Time is never a factor. Some artists have taken 5 years off only to put out their worst album to date. Then some artists record an album in 2 months and it's the most respected of their career.

[mst3k]

DuckHead said:

For instance, I waited for two years for Avril's new album, bought it the day it came out, listened to it many times, and now... I have to wait 2 more years for another one. That's a long wait.

Well, there are other artists besides Avril that you can listen to, you know.  ;)

Next time, only listen to half of the album. Then, 12 months later, you can listen to the other half. Problem solved! ;) ;)

[Bob]

The said:

Time is never a factor.  Some artists have taken 5 years off only to put out their worst album to date.  Then some artists record an album in 2 months and it's the most respected of their career.

Yes true, but I think anyone who repeatedly puts out albums a year or so apart, as in, 3 or more albums a year apart, is probably putting out stuff they're not putting their heart into, and it's probably not quality, even if it's popular.

And then artists who repeatedly take too long run a risk of people forgetting them, and of getting too out of touch with the scene. But it's about consistency, I mean if you have one long delay that's probably okay.

2 years is ideal I think, but 3 is okay. But a year or less = bad almost always. More than 3 is scary, but apparently doable.

[DuckHead]

mst3k said:

Well, there are other artists besides Avril that you can listen to, you know.  ;)

Next time, only listen to half of the album. Then, 12 months later, you can listen to the other half. Problem solved!  ;) ;)

LOL!

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Bob said:

Yes true, but I think anyone who repeatedly puts out albums a year or so apart, as in, 3 or more albums a year apart, is probably putting out stuff they're not putting their heart into, and it's probably not quality, even if it's popular.

And then artists who repeatedly take too long run a risk of people forgetting them, and of getting too out of touch with the scene. But it's about consistency, I mean if you have one long delay that's probably okay.

2 years is ideal I think, but 3 is okay. But a year or less = bad almost always. More than 3 is scary, but apparently doable.

You can't say for sure one way or the other. You don't know if they put time into it or not....no one does accept for the artists and others involved in the records making, distribution, and promotion(if there is any).

[halo19]

I don't think it should matter. It's better to take time to release what the artist wants to, rather than just rush each release.

Some artists are fine when it comes to releasing albums each year, but some are just better off taking the time between albums. I think that time shouldn't be a factor, because it's different for every artist.

[irice22]

This is true for an artist who has not fully been established yet. I believe Nlly Furtado waited too long to release her next album, people forgot how much they liked her.

[j]

You know, for artists who write their own music, it's extremely difficult to release an album every year or even every 2 years for that matter. If you factor in time for album promotion, touring, recording and everything, how much time would you have left to really sit down and write a song? It's easy if you're Britney Spears or Jojo and you have a whole army of songwriters working for you.

[NORTHCOAST]

numb said:

You know, for artists who write their own music, it's extremely difficult to release an album every year or even every 2 years for that matter. If you factor in time for album promotion, touring, recording and everything, how much time would you have left to really sit down and write a song? It's easy if you're Britney Spears or Jojo and you have a whole army of songwriters working for you.

Great thread!  Totally agree with the above comment.  Much different for singer/songwriters and bands who write their own stuff.  I remember reading Rolling Stone's "500 Greatest Albums of All Time".  It was so surprising how the Top Ten albums by Dylan (2 albums) and The Beatles (4 albums) were all written in such a short period of time.  Sometimes just over half a year between albums.  Perhaps it was the "substances"?

[Walking Contradiction]

The said:

Then some artists record an album in 2 months and it's the most respected of their career.

Metallica is the epitome of that concept, IMO. They made their fans wait more than half a decade for a new album and then came out with something that sounds like it was written, recorded, and mixed in one day.

Still, I'd rather wait longer than see a lapse in quality because of rushing.

I know one of the members of Incubus recently stated that they don't want to wait two years to release albums anymore, and I'm a bit skeptical because as it is I thought A Crow Left of the Murder sounded a bit too rushed.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

TAs weird as it sounds, Sarah McLachlan has only recorded two studio albums in the last 10 years. FTE came out in 1993, Surfacing in 1997 and Afterglow in 2003.

Personally, I think anything more than 3 years is too long a wait. 2 years is probably better because by the time you're into the CD and then over it, it'll be about a year and a half and that gives you time to anticipate a new album. At least that's the way it is for me. Chantal released her last CD in November of 2002 and I'm now wanting to hear word on another new one... still waiting.