Today I was listening to Creedence Clearwater Revival on the radio, and it got me thinking, why were bands so prolific back then? Nowadays, most bands release a new album every 3 to 5 years roughly. But back in the 70s, Black Sabbath released 5 albums in 3 years. CCR released 7 albums in their 5 years of recording. Why are bands so slow with new material these days? Now we have digital technology, and it's supposedly possible for bands to record, distribute and do everything much easier with computers, but back then they released new stuff like music was going to stop being made afterwords, and most of it was good. What's up with that?

It isn't hard to find examples of current metal bands releasing albums on a yearly basis.

A good number of bands to many people in these threads:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=86642&hilit=wintersun
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=71731&hilit=wintersun
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=85732&hilit=wintersun
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=63073&hilit=wintersun

I wasn't thinking just metal in particular, but all music. But that is true.

I'm guessing that with the "decreased sales" from pirating, record companies aren't as keen on "wasting" money for bands to record new material.

I'm only 21 so I could be a bit off base, but back then...that was a time of incredible musical revolution, and bands popped out of the woodwork to share their unique visions and rebel against authority and all kinds of stuff. The passion to make music has not dwindled today, but we don't have that kind of rebellious, changing wind surging through our society today. Not like it was back then.

I'm still waiting for Ashton to come out publicly about this elaborate wintersun fiasco

because there is not enough money to make yearly albums...i mean,record companies (the big ones and the small ones) dont want to risk their money,now bands win most of their profits in touring, making an album has become a sort of inversion while it should be an expression

I posted a thread once contemplating the same question. One thing that explains about half of it is the fact that CDs contain more material than vinyls. Another explanation could be that back in may have been seen, from record labels' viewpoint, to be financially viable to have bands release albums as often as possible, using less time polishing the material, let alone polishing the stuff for ages in studio. Mixing also takes longer than before due to more advanced technologies and the myriad of producing/mixing possibilities brought by said technology. Now that making music is easier, there are consecutively more bands releasing material (of whom fewer and fewer are full-blown professionals devoting all their time to writing, recording and playing and more and more work day jobs) and therefore labels have more bands in their rosters. Thus, labels are able to focus more on quality of individual releases and still maintain frequent album release rates where as previously it would've been challenging and not a financially viable strategy.

There is unlikely one single grand reason, but it is the sum of many things. It is clear that the average mainstream release of today is more polished both in terms of recording, production, mixing and even material (which is generally well-trimmed whereas much 70s rock and pop was more bulky). That is indeed because such polishing is made possible by technology we have today, but said polishing takes time, and trimming the material reduces its overall bulks and on its behalf affects a single band's album releasing frequency. As for underground stuff, there are still many bands who release several albums a year.

You have to remember that back in the 70's you had an full album when you had 7 songs! Now albums are about 13 songs, that's almost the double amount of tracks! There are still bands that release albums with fewer tracks, especially in Black Metal. Swedish Shining has 6 tracks on every single album they have released, so they can almost release an album every year!

Necrophagist man

Indeed. But at this point, I (and many others) have already given up on them. After all, there are plenty of tech death bands that make better music and, you know, actually release albums.

I also think it has to do with the fact that in the 60's and early to mid 70's the tours were a lot shorter that it became since the 80's. Not all bands used to travel the world. Nowadays is much easier for a band from, say Finland to come to Brazil or from the US to some parts of Europe. Longer tours mean fewer albums.

If a band don't tour at all it's easier to make more albums. The Beatles are a perfect exemple of what I'm talking about. If you think about they had a short-lived career but they released quite a lot of albums in that period. Of course, they just stopped doing concerts at a point in their career which left a lot more free time to write new material.

I'm sure that's not the only reason, but certainly is part of it.

I'd rather get a great album every three years than a shitty album every year. That said, some bands do manage to release solid material yearly. Kudos to them. I personally think that two years is the perfect timing between albums.

This thread needs some Sprial Architect. Supposedly they were working on a new album...I think? Who knows.

Obligatory Bolt Thrower post...

Out of context...They're not taking forever to release a new album, they're only not doing a new one for the moment.

Also, it's more than a question of number of songs. It's a question of format. Vinyl were usually around 40 mins, but I think they 60 minutes was the limit, a cd can hold up to 80 mins.

I prefer a 3 year-wait, to give them any time they might need... I can stand 4 years like with Agalloch (since they're very consistent), but I prefer 3. I'm sure enough good metal would still come out every year if everyone was on a 3-year cycle.

Blind Guardian

"We all miss The News, Meg, but Huey Lewis needs time to create."

Vital Remains hasn't released anything in a while, either. . .

Manowar, Manowar, living on the road in the studio!

Seriously, after 1988 they only released four full-lengths with new material, while in 1982 to 1988 they released six albums. But of course, if you do this kind of things... We've been waiting since 2007 for a new album, and it already took five years to release Gods of War that year.

wasp was quite productive last decade

Quo Vadis and Persuader anyone? Haven't Quo Vadis been pushing back this phantom "new" album for like 4-5 years now?

ne obliviscaris they have been working on their album since 07 or something

http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Iro ... 3540256333
Proof you can release consistently good and polished material in a short amount of time, just get rid of all the the other members of your band.
Yes thats 19 albums two splits and one compilation in FIVE years.

now that I think about it, Noumena hasn't done anything in over half a decade.
http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Noumena/18899

Motherfucking Necrophagist..

Oh and Gorguts..

at this point we may as well just give up on Necrophagist. . and Wintersun as well for that matter.

They can hold off on that one, in fact the world would be better off without a new Manowar or Necrophagist album. Its been a while since Internal bleeding's latest, and I would also like to see some new Sanctuary material since they have reformed.
_________________

I've always wondered how bands in the 70's could release several all-time classic albums in the same year when it takes most modern bands half a decade to produce shit.

I guess touring may have something to do with it, but who knows. How much money does a band really make from an album these days? Probably next to nothing.

Call me crazy, but I think that a lot of "classic" albums have really the same level of quality as newer albums, they're just rated higher for their influence. Also, really, with the exception of Springsteen and a few others, how many songs from these "classic" albums do you really hear all that much?

Someone already covered the biggest thing, in my opinion: back in the day, record sales were the breadwinner. Bands toured to promote their records. Nowadays it's reversed; bands put out records for a reason to tour. I know it's not the only reason, but I'm sure that's a large contributing factor.

But as it's been pointed out, it's not overly hard to still find incredibly active bands. Eh.

Also, for album lengths... I used to prefer the really long playing albums, but I find less and less of those contain enough good music to warrant their length. Nowadays my preferences lie more towards the 35-45 minute albums. The EP is beautiful format as well.

Lykathea Aflame!

. . um I think Lykathea is split up, actually. Either that or they changed their name and are under a different genre now but either way they aren't really truly active enough to make that statement legit.

Carpathian fucking Forest.

Most full time so called second tier bands need to bring out an album every year or two just to make ends meet. This is why bands like Motorhead, Overkill and the like of that status consistently bring a new one out every year or two. Bigger bands, like Metallica, Judas Priest and Iron Maiden simply don't need the money the way the second tier bands do, which means they can afford to break between records and tours. Bands such as Manowar are part time bands these days, with most of the members working outside of the band. Demoting from full time to part time inevitably draws out the writing and recording process.

Its also worth noting that the OP cited bands who were at the time at the start of their careers. Counting On Parole, Motorhead released 5 albums in 3 years, as Black Sabbath did, albeit under slightly different circumstances. Both Saxon and Judas Priest achieved 7 albums in 5 years during the late 70's early 80's years also. All the big bands from the NWOBHM, thrash and death metal movements also released an album more or less every year or two.

Well Immolation has only released 8 albums in 24 years. Then again, all their albums are flawless so it's worth waiting for. On the other spectrum of things, Anaal Nathrakh is releasing their seventh this year. That's 7 albums in the 11 years since Codex Necro came out and I love all of them

Cloven Hoof

Necrovore said they would release their first full length album back in 2005. I'm still waiting, damnit!