Rock and Roll Aint Dead Yet, as you should all know if you read my blog titled such. But it seems to be slowing down with age. The Beatles at times released 2-3 albums per year. Their best work, Sgt. Peppers-Let it Be, were all released within a year of eachother.
The Rolling Stones released albums every year or two.
Led Zeppelin released an album every year or two.
Pink Floyd took at most 3 years.
The Velvet Underground releaed one every year.
But in modern music, it isn't all that strange to see albums being releaed with 3-4 year increments between them. Radiohead took 4 years to release it's most recent album, "In Rainbows". Sufjan Stevens hasn't released an album since 2005. Coldplay is planning to release an album next year, 3 years after its last. The Shins took 4 years to release their most recent album. What is this?!
I know that these bands are putting alot of time and effort into their work, but I don't see that their music is in any way superior to The Beatles, Floyd, or the Stones. So why is this taking so long?
It is especially bad when I am dissapointed with the Album that took 3 years to make (shame, shame Ryan Adams, Easy Tiger was your worst...woooooorrrrssssst).
I think it is time for these bands to start cranking out the tunes, because I am getting tired of waiting.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Beatles had the help of writers and producers and all kinds of music things that I don't know about to help them put out and make the most money and advertising for popularity possible, while bands like Radiohead care more about the actual music than selling it.
Not that I'm bashing on the Beatles...
----
If You Swear That There's No Truth And Who Cares, How Come You Say It Like You're Right? [Bright Eyes]
http://progressiveu.org/143541-how-to-survive-the-2008-elections
Don't forget the help all that acid gave them. I'm sure it made quite the creative contribution and incentive.
Radiohead has computers, which I believe should be a greater help than anything the Beatles might have had. And the idea that the Beatles had writers? That is something I have never, ever heard before. They had a producer, George Martin, who had a great influence on the "classical" feel of some of their older songs, even playing piano on songs like "In my Life".
Your right to say they were being pushed by their manager and their record company to crank out the albums as fast as possible to get as much money as possible at first. But even those albums arent bad, and have some timeless hits on them. To say that Radiohead cares more about the music than The Beatles, I think that is a little mislead. The Beatles released music that was ahead of all other popular and rock music at the time. Their music was popular, but perhaps that is more a testament to their musical greatness.
I don't personally agree they had "writers", I've never read that anywhere, nor is there any other writers ever credited in their music (except for covers).
Not dissing Radiohead though, they are great, one of the absolute best Rock bands in modern music.
P.S. there have been assertions made that Radioheads song Karma Police is very similar to a Beatles song "Sexy Sadie" so similar in chord structure that some people even think they may have stolen it. (I don't think they did, I think that when you find a great chord structure, you say "wow, thats good" and don't recognize it similar to something else you may ahve heard. George Harrison could certainly atest to that)
"It's Better To Burn Out Than To Fade Away" -Neil Young
Like I said, I'm not bashing on the Beatles. I don't think that they didn't care about their music; I'm sure they did.
But bands like Radiohead are allowed to take their time focusing on nothing but the music, perfecting it to a tee.
And sorry that I didn't make my first assertion about "writers and producers and all kinds of music stuff" more clear... I didn't mean just the Beatles, I meant bands like them and music of that time that had everyone collaborating together to push out as many albums as possible.
Please don't misunderstand: I wasn't trying to bash or praise either of the bands, just use them as examples.
----
If You Swear That There's No Truth And Who Cares, How Come You Say It Like You're Right? [Bright Eyes]
http://progressiveu.org/143541-how-to-survive-the-2008-elections
It is all good, I didn't mean to sound like I was taking offense. Believe me I can praise Radioheads ability to make every sound and every beat perfect and chilling and awesome and much much more in their music. I understand what you are saying about The Beatles being pushed to make albums quickly. However, I don't believe that a "In Rainbows" a ten song album, should take four years to complete, no matter how many sub beats and sweet harmonies there are. Especially when a band like Pink Floyd released The Dark Side of the Moon 2 years after its album Meddle, and produced the double album The Wall two years after its album Animals. Both Floyd albums are what one may call refined to the same quality as Radioheads albums. It is especailly impressive they refined them to that quality without the aid of computers and digital recording.
My main problem with the four year wait between albums is this. I feel that these modern bands are not pressuring themselves to get their music out with as much quality as possible, in the shortest amount of time. And I feel this is sort of a slap to their fans, especially when their work isn't even at par with their past works.
"It's Better To Burn Out Than To Fade Away" -Neil Young
Music sales have been in decline for the last 8 to 10 years for the first time since music was first recorded. The declining revenue might be a bit of a disincentive to release new work.
Another factor that has appeared in this past ten years or so is copyright enforcement from hell. Any music released today is analyzed by computer for 'stolen' elements. There are music conglomerate lawyers waiting to sue 24/7. You either settle, or fight for years at great expence. They are definitely trying to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
I know why it takes them so long. Its because they all suck in the first place, and they have to practice 3 times as much as the beatles just to play it without sucking, never mind making an outstanding album. They are trying to not make mistakes!
I used to categorize modern bands the same way, with a big "suck" over them all. But I found there are some good musicians out there with a lot of talent. I agree they are trying to make perfect mistakeless music, which it is obvious teh Beatles did not, you can hear little misses here and there on their music. But I believe these bands have quite a bit of talent, Ryan Adams and Radiohead as examples. I wouldn't put them on par with the Beatles as far as talent though, call me old fashioned like that.
"It's Better To Burn Out Than To Fade Away" -Neil Young
Modest Mouse is up there with Radiohead. Both those bands have pushed the bounds of modern music.
two favorite bands EVER!!!
Very True, Modest Mouse is a great example. They have pushed modern music, have great talent, and have been far more createive than almost any of their contemporaries. But, 4 years between "The Mooon and Antartica" and "Good News..." and then three years between "Good News..." and "We Were Dead..." What is hold up guys? Why does it take 4 years!
"It's Better To Burn Out Than To Fade Away" -Neil Young
I had a thought.
Maybe the length of time between albums is a marketing ploy! [I don't want to accuse any of these bands of capitalism, but hey, we're in the 21st century people.]
I'm one of those people who will listen to an album until it disappears from being played so much. So obviously, I grow tired of albums and have to put them on a "break" before I pull them out again.
If I listen to an album and start to grow a little "tired" of it, chances are, I'm not going to rush out and by the next album if it comes out within the year [unless I really love the band or I know this new albums is different. But anyway, staying on track...] if I have to wait four years to buy the next album, of COURSE I'm going to be ready for it!
They build hype and build hype and leave you wondering and build hype and then POW! A new album. Four years later.
Wouldn't you rush out to buy it?
----
If You Swear That There's No Truth And Who Cares, How Come You Say It Like You're Right? [Bright Eyes]
http://progressiveu.org/143541-how-to-survive-the-2008-elections
Good thought. When a new album comes out, I have it within a week of release. But I think I'd probably do that anyway if they came out faster. They sure did with the Beatles and the Stones and Led Zeppelin. Every album was a hit, it didn't matter if it had been 6 months or three years since their last album had hit the shelves, they sold like hot cakes. I just have gotten impatient. Especially since most of the bands I like alot have recently released albums, and I know I am going to have to wait 2010 or later to get another!
"It's Better To Burn Out Than To Fade Away" -Neil Young