eros said:

What's with the artists of today? Or can this phenomenom be attributed to the record execs who pimp them for all they're worth just to drop them like a bad subject as soon as the public is over them. How can anyone expect to be taken seriously as an artist when they release new albums every two weeks?! Are they no longer intetested in longevity? Rihanna?[i] [Edited 10/9/11 17:51pm]

But, you know that most artists back in the 60s, 70s and 80s released albums yearly- sometimes 6 months apart. Albeit, the records were shorter. I don't mind when artists release albums yearly, but I still perfer 40 to 45 min albums.

We saw a tide shift in the 90s- when every record label wanted to get more out of an album; artists became a bit more lazy; everybody wanted longer albums and everything became exclusively number focused. That meaning, labels didn't want an artist to put out more records that couldn't go multi-platium.

Back in the day, a gold record was cool. As long as they had good numbers, people kept on make records and moved on. Sure, we had mega albums back in the day, but they were rare.

eros said:

What's with the artists of today? Or can this phenomenom be attributed to the record execs who pimp them for all they're worth just to drop them like a bad subject as soon as the public is over them. How can anyone expect to be taken seriously as an artist when they release new albums every two weeks?! Are they no longer intetested in longevity? Rihanna?[i] [Edited 10/9/11 17:51pm]

Prince?

smoothcriminal12 said:

eros said:

What's with the artists of today? Or can this phenomenom be attributed to the record execs who pimp them for all they're worth just to drop them like a bad subject as soon as the public is over them. How can anyone expect to be taken seriously as an artist when they release new albums every two weeks?! Are they no longer intetested in longevity? Rihanna?[i] [Edited 10/9/11 17:51pm]

Prince?

The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Barbra Streisand, Bowie, R.E.M., The Smiths, Blondie, Sonic Youth, Sade,

I can go on...

RKJCNE said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Prince?

The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Barbra Streisand, Bowie, R.E.M., The Smiths, Blondie, Sonic Youth, Sade,

I can go on...

That one sentence just invalidated his entire thread in my opinion.

eros said:

What's with the artists of today?

Here we go should be the name of this board. LOL People now have short attention spans so the artists got to strike while they are hot sadly it's not weird to me to see an artist release an album every year . Rihanna loud album came out last year but she just put out her single cheers then moved on to we found love on this new album so yeah there was a little rush there but hey that's the industry now. Even Gaga talking about she working on her new album my goodness.

Frank zappa once made 5 albums in one year, Judas priest used to make 2 albums a year & kiss at one time. And Zappa never had no top 40 hits by any means lol

So.. it's not a bad thing to always release so many albums.

musicman said:

eros said:

What's with the artists of today? Or can this phenomenom be attributed to the record execs who pimp them for all they're worth just to drop them like a bad subject as soon as the public is over them. How can anyone expect to be taken seriously as an artist when they release new albums every two weeks?! Are they no longer intetested in longevity? Rihanna?[i] [Edited 10/9/11 17:51pm]

But, you know that most artists back in the 60s, 70s and 80s released albums yearly- sometimes 6 months apart. Albeit, the records were shorter. I don't mind when artists release albums yearly, but I still perfer 40 to 45 min albums.

We saw a tide shift in the 90s- when every record label wanted to get more out of an album; artists became a bit more lazy; everybody wanted longer albums and everything became exclusively number focused. That meaning, labels didn't want an artist to put out more records that couldn't go multi-platium.

Back in the day, a gold record was cool. As long as they had good numbers, people kept on make records and moved on. Sure, we had mega albums back in the day, but they were rare.

That's what I thought too.

smoothcriminal12 said:

eros said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

That one sentence just invalidated his entire thread in my opinion.

Explain

I think he's saying these artists are legends. In your post you asked if anyone wanted longevity.

I think I understand what you're trying to say. It seems like people are more interested in putting out crap to make a fast buck. However, we were showing that is wasn't the norm to take off 3 and 4 years between projects.

musicman said:

eros said:

musicman said:

I think he's saying these artists are legends. In your post you asked if anyone wanted longevity.

I think I understand what you're trying to say. It seems like people are more interested in putting out crap to make a fast buck. However, we were showing that is wasn't the norm to take off 3 and 4 years between projects.

Ok...but post that he cited as having made this thread null and void named Sade as an example. She releases albums every ten years

Her first two albums were released stateswide in the same year. 1985.

Pre-1970's, it was common for acts to release 2 or 3 albums in a year, plus non-album singles and/or B-sides. At one point in the mid 1960's, James Brown released 9 or 10 albums in a 2 year period, and even more with his side productions. It was mainly Thriller that started the trend of releasing practically the whole album as singles, and so a record company could milk one album for a couple of years, when in the past albums came and went. Before that, on average, maybe 2 or 3 singles were released from an album. Some acts didn't release songs from albums and recorded songs specifically for singles such as The Beatles. Some 1970's acts were "album acts" and sold a lot of albums, but received little or no Top 40 airplay. Generally these were prog rock, southern rock, or heavy metal bands (in the US). They had separate stations called AOR, and these weren't singles oriented.

eros said:

What's with the artists of today? Or can this phenomenom be attributed to the record execs who pimp them for all they're worth just to drop them like a bad subject as soon as the public is over them. How can anyone expect to be taken seriously as an artist when they release new albums every two weeks?! Are they no longer intetested in longevity? Rihanna?[i] [Edited 10/9/11 17:51pm]

People have a point here....There were dozens of artists that released yearly....lets not even talk about Funkadelic / Parliament...two bands and two albums at the same time

MickyDolenz said:

Pre-1970's, it was common for acts to release 2 or 3 albums in a year, plus non-album singles and/or B-sides. At one point in the mid 1960's, James Brown released 9 or 10 albums in a 2 year period, and even more with his side productions. It was mainly Thriller that started the trend of releasing practically the whole album as singles, and so a record company could milk one album for a couple of years, when in the past albums came and went. Before that, on average, maybe 2 or 3 singles were released from an album. Some acts didn't release songs from albums and recorded songs specifically for singles such as The Beatles. Some 1970's acts were "album acts" and sold a lot of albums, but received little or no Top 40 airplay. Generally these were prog rock, southern rock, or heavy metal bands (in the US). They had separate stations called AOR, and these weren't singles oriented.

MJ's massive sales set a marketing strategy. Release a bunch of singles, tour then wait a couple years to build anticipation.

I personally love that Rihanna is dropping an album every year, it keeps me interested and I think her albums are getting progressively better. When Christina Aguilera took 4 years to follow up on her Back To Basics album and it wasn't at all worth the wait that sunk her career. If you're making pop music Rihanna has the right strategy, and look at the records it's causing her to break.

eros said:

Oh well....I disagree For me it comes across as if they are milking their current popularity for everything its worth; striking while the iron is hot, if you will. As a result the market becomes oversaturated with their voices and images and the inevitably suffer a public backlash And then to top it off, not only do we have their releases....but they do a guest spot on every other popular artist's song. For me it becomes just too much [Edited 10/10/11 10:27am]

It can be indeed.. but what about Prince & all the other numerous artists of the past who we mentioned? do they think they where doing the same?

smoothcriminal12 said:

RKJCNE said:

The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Barbra Streisand, Bowie, R.E.M., The Smiths, Blondie, Sonic Youth, Sade,

I can go on...

That one sentence just invalidated his entire thread in my opinion.

For real!

RKJCNE said:

Gunsnhalen said:

Timmy84 said:

eros said:

Timmy84 said:

For real!

Ever notice how people without original thoughts just repost other peoples comments and add 'lols' and smileys in the hopes that someone might think they actually contributed something clever? [Edited 10/10/11 11:58am]

Ooooooh, diss.

eros said:

Gunsnhalen said:

It can be indeed.. but what about Prince & all the other numerous artists of the past who we mentioned? do they think they where doing the same?

Maybe the differentiating factor is that those artists had REAL talent in the first place

And when they were big I'm sure plenty of old timers were yelling about how they weren't talented either.

eros said:

Gunsnhalen said:

It can be indeed.. but what about Prince & all the other numerous artists of the past who we mentioned? do they think they where doing the same?

Maybe the differentiating factor is that those artists had REAL talent in the first place

People complained about acts back then too, like Bobby Sherman, Frankie Avalon, or even rock 'n roll itself. Apparently lots of people like the acts you're complaining about, and they make money or you wouldn't see them. When was the last time you heard a polka song used as a ringtone or as the background music in a cosmetics ad?

MickyDolenz said:

This just reminds me of that year at the VMAS when Macy Gray wore that dress that says "My album drops" or something like that