Most artists these days don't have the talent or ideas to put out that many albums. That, and the way the business works and how long it takes to promote an album, the labels don't want to "flood the market with product."

I think an album a year is a good steady pace. It gives the fans the chance to digest the album, and then it keeps the act in their minds without having to do all sorts of whorish publicity to keep their profile up. I think part of the reason so many acts aren't sticking is because they aren't forced to release all that much music.

Elton definitely has a very impressive catalogue of music. His Goodbye Yellow Brick Road album is genius and still stands up today. Some of his early work is amazing, both musically and lyrically. I've had the pleasure of seeing him perform live 3 times and he's never disappointed me.

"Elton owns the record that will NEVER be broken again, which is at least one Top 40 single 30 years in a row 1970-1999"

that's pretty amazing!

Yeah, he has recorded a LOT of shit

NDRU said:

yeah i think of the records i have seen like most number one's most top 10's etc.. this record has always impressed me mainly because it cant ever be touched because of the way music is geared now, i mean from the 80's on Elton was between the age of 33-52, do you think Top 40 would play someone that age? I heard someone say the other day that Beyonce was "old"? this is the mindset that would never let this happen again

PFunkjazz said:

You need to expand your knowledge. It sounds as though you don't know much about music and what makes a great musician. It's too bad really.

guitarslinger44 said:

Yeah i dont even think that todays artists could do an album a year, and sure some may say Rihanna has, but she doesnt do her albums they are done for her and even so that output from her will be over very soon. I think the problem is that there is no competition to challenge artists for the most part, though there are many that have the output just go unnoticed by most, like Ryan Adams,Lucinda Williams,Norah Jones (depite her only having 3 solo albums, since 2002 shes been on over 50 other artists albums). I think in Eltons time there in the early to mid 70's you had competition, nowadays music is alot of artists "side job" they always have their movie to be in or their new perfume or clothing line etc..to worry about.

lastdecember said:

That's because the Rihanna's of the world have very little real musical talent.

Empress said:

Ok, if you say so.

PFunkjazz said:

Oh well. Some people feel the same way about Stevie Wonder as you do about Elton . As I said, it's sad that some people are so limited in their musical tastes.

how were there so many artists that were able to do this without flooding the market?

dragondayz said:

I'm not sure really, but I believe that it has to do with the fact that many artists of the past were more talented than those of today. They had to actually know how to sing and play.

dragondayz said:

Because it was a competition alot of the time, and the labels promoted it that way, now they just HYPE a record for months and months and months till you dont care anymore. It was really a challenge to be this way, and really everyone was, now there is too much concern on the business end because all the money spent to promote, do videos, do press and all that useless stuff has taken the place of just doing your record. Believe it or not LABELS back then werent afraid to "lose" money because in the end they were building artists for the future, nowadays its basically the opposite.

Empress said:

So I guess it was hard to get sick of them when they had talent and good songs right?

Empress said:

Yeah, I know. I have the exact same disdain for anything he did after MADMAN that those might complain about post-70s Stevie.

lastdecember said:

I wonder was if the industry saw more or just as much profit back then?

dragondayz said:

I would say they saw more then, just because of the outrageous costs of today that i hear on recording expenses,producer expenses,videos etc..i really dont see how there is any profit for a label today just because it seems they throw money at projects and they never make it back. But alot of it also can be attributed to the fact that there are no more "recording stars" now you are a "media star" and thats really where its going, granted there are exceptions of artists out there that are putting out 1 and sometimes 2 a year, but the difference with them now, like a Ryan Adams who does 1-2 a year, a label has no desire to push him back in the 70's and even 80's he would have been pushed.

lastdecember said:

I agree with you up to a point. On the one hand, he was putting out a lot of albums during this time. But at the same time, the average album had only 7 to 10 songs on it, and some of those double albums had live tracks on them. Even the double albums of the time would be equivalent to putting out your typical CD today. Having said that, Elton was already blessed enough to be an exceptional musician and songwriter, and with Bernie Taupin, they wrote some amazing songs together. Even artists who were putting out similar amounts of material at that time probably weren't writing a whole lot of classic music. Sure, Led Zeppelin. The Who, Stevie Wonder, and Marvin Gaye were putting out the best material of their careers, but most pop acts were dumping as much crap on the charts as crappy acts today. Fore every "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" or "Candle In The Wind", you had artists releasing stuff like "Billy Don't Be A Hero", "Run Joey Run" or "Get Up and Boogie".

First off great example. I have the sacd's 5.1 mix of the first couple of albums mixed by greg Penny and they are remarkable.

Elton is a prime example of top notch musician first, songwriter second. Today's artists impress the public if they are seen holding a guitar and strumming some chords.

But Elton and Stevie were superb on their instrument and prolific in writing original melodies.

I don't know what has changed, but I am only 30 yrs old and I think today's music is horrible in general. I mean in 70's you had Elton, Stevie, Sly, progrssive stuff etc. Today you rarely get 2 good albums from an artist if one. My guess is its because labels want stars not catalog artists so people don't have time to improve their songwriting skills. There is so much double guessing based on a magical formula of what is a HIT>.

And I happen to think the 70's one off songs like We just Disagree or other soft rock am hits are a million times more memorable than today's pop hits. They had what is a dying breed, its called a melody and song structure.

There are some prolific artists that are out now. Ryan Adams was one suggested. Buckethead has released close to 25 albums this year. Guided by Voices although not my bag is always listed under releasing tons of stuff.

An artist who could be classified as old, Elvis Costello has been pretty busy in the past couple of years with very strong material.

Look I don't secretly hope that most new music makes me puke, I want to be moved to tears and chills, but for every Arcade Fire there are 20 fall out boy

Last December what label do/did you work for? Your insight is more than a casual market observer.

Best Wishes & Happy Holidays to all,
Andrew
[Edited 12/11/07 12:15pm]

728huey said:

True about making smaller albums, i just think back then if you made a record with 8 tracks all 8 had to be good, big difference between vinyl and Cd's. Even Elton said recently that CD's forced alot of artists to say "too" much, and i agree because if you do 1 album with 18tracks and about half are good its not the same as doing 2-3 albums in the same span with 8 tracks each and all good.

aalloca said:

I agree and when i point out the SHIT of today (and theres lots) i dont do it because i enjoy to do it, i just see Music taking a back seat to all these other forms of media and to someone who loves music of all kinds i get annoyed where i see it going. I think the HYPE machine often tends to feed the ego too much nowadays, i hear bands get titles like "best band ever" as their first record comes out? Theres just this constant Hype to create the next big thing and not the next big ARTIST. Artist that is a term that needs to be earned and not handed to everyone that records an album or has a single, but labels are not in the market for Artist's because its really viewed as an expense, and to labels now, it takes too much time to build a following. Just think if labels thought about Prince,u2,Inxs,Rem etc.. that way, artists who didnt really catch on till at least 4 albums in, do you think now a label would even bank roll 4 albums from someone?

But dont get me wrong there are some "lights" in the darkness, people like the ones mentioned, mainly Ryan Adams also Alison Krauss,Lucinda Williams and yes Norah Jones mainly because this girl actually does go into the studio daily and do music, though she has only 3 albums she has guested and performed on 50+ others in 6 years, just because she loves to play. There again i dont think there is alot of that today, the LOVE of just music, it seems to be a sidejob to alot of artists.

As far as where i worked i did Music Retail for 17 years from my teens to my 30's, and in that time associated very closely with label people from every label, that werent afraid to tell me the "dirt" on the way things were really going, so i still have many of those friendships along with a few recording artists that i still keep in contact with. And also a very good friendship with Sonya Askew, she really taught me alot about the buying aspect of the business, the soundscan hipocracy, label deals for numbers etc..she also wrote for Vibe magazine.

I agree completely, I also like Alison Krauss and Norah who doesn't try to reinvent the wheel, but still makes great songs.

I knew you had to have some music business exp since your comments and questions often get the heart of the matter.

I love the best ever lists too. It's rough out there now, but usually in the darkest times I find an artist that moves me... still looking right now.

Funny we keep mentioning Ryan Adams and I avoided him for awhile because gold was so hyped, but I keep hearing damn good songs from him that I think I will pick up a couple albums. I also like a guy named Sondre Lerche from Norway on Astralwerks label. First 2 albums were very good. I saw him open for Elvis Costello in NYC a few yrs ago.

aalloca said:

Yeah i basically got into Ryan by accident, word of mouth kind of thing which is how you always find the best stuff in a way, it was around the time of "Gold" and thats when he was being pushed into the limelight, even Mtv i think played him, but a Ryan fan from the being told me get into "Heartbreaker" by Ryan Adams and then go from there and since then ive liked this guys stuff and his attitude, of just putting out music. For Norah its a more personal thing because i saw and met her long before she was signed, she was playing little clubs (and i mean little) in NYC with her band and people like Richard Julian,Adam Levy and Jesse Harris and many others and i just started seeing her and thinking shes amazing but it was like that whole thing where you really hope the artist doesnt "blow up" and of course she did but im glad at hows shes reacted to it since then which is always with humour, but shes even got back to just playing the clubs alot of times, even under other names to get away from it all. But as always when you think it that music isnt going to have something great i will hear a great new album from a favorite artist of mine and faith is restored

dragondayz said:

For one thing, a lot fewer records being released by the big labels. I don't know the exact stats but at some point in the 90s I recall reading that the major labels were putting out a combined 500+ titles EVERY MONTH, up from less than 100 in the late 70s.

It was also a holdover from the 1960s when you were expected to have a new hit every few months. Folks who were prolific like Elton had a platform to produce as much as they could dream up. In general, shelf-life was shorter. Some bands today are still touring for albums that came out in 2006.

In terms of the long haul, I believe Neil Young has 34 albums under his name since 1968, not counting 3 with Buffalo Springfield, 2 with CSNY, 1 with Stephen Stills and a bunch of live albums & compilations. Not many chart hits since 1980 or so, except for Harvest Moon, but I think the new albums hold up extremely well.

bobzilla77 said:

I agree, but i think with "shelf life" i think its much shorter now, i think it was Chuck D who recently said that a new album has about a 3 week shelf life and the artist itself a little bit longer

lastdecember said:

You have some great posts on this thread Last December.

I was briefly signed to a major label in the mid-90s and indeed, the cost of sustaining your existence was fluffed up beyond recognition. One guy I remember describing the major label scene as "a bunch of guys Fedexing sandwiches to each other on the company tab." I had to laugh, remembering that we did once receive food (and un-requested porno tapes) from our label guy via Fedex. It was a nice treat but I do remember thinking, "How many Fedexes does Marilyn Manson get a day and how much of that cost is part of OUR budget to recoup"?

Nobody has any interest in discipline any more. In our indie days, we made records on $2000-$3000 budgets, which meant you had to be finished tracking in about 3 days. We would rehearse insanely for a month beforehand, and we never had a problem getting keeper takes in that short time. With the major label deal, we got really luxuriant with our sweet time and took about two weeks to get it done. I'd bet Ryan Adams takes that or less.

There's no reason AC/DC or whoever couldn't do the same thing. But if you have half a million budgeted dollars to record, well heck, no reason not to fritter away every cent.After all, they're rock stars, they don't want to appear cheap or desperate.

bobzilla77 said:

Yeah i agree its the old saying "if you give someone 6 months, they'll take it, but if you tell them it has to be done in two weeks no excuse then they'll do it. and the same goes with money, when i hear some numbers on budgets nowadays i think "why is everyone shocked when people get dropped and labels merge and fold" to me it all started getting this way in the soundscan era and even a little before, when things like Mtv became "players" and then corporations started buying it all up. People forget that back in the day that labels were being run by a few people here and there, now there are lawyers everywhere and accountants and business majors all doing nothing but getting a check.