Why are modern artists so much less prolific than artists in the 60s and 70s? The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd...

Why are modern artists so much less prolific than artists in the 60s and 70s? The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Bob Dylan, David Bowie, and Neil Young were putting out an album every year or two during their prime, but artists like Radiohead, Joanna Newsom, and LCD Soundsystem need years to put out a record. Why?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=2VF4J9xzIVs
youtube.com/watch?v=0UIB9Y4OFPs
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I don't know about the others but the Beatles never toured after 65 so that gave them more time in the studio

>what is viper
Also
>X artists were putting out an album every year or two during their prime
Radiohead prime was Kid A - Amnesiac, senpai.

production

That was one session and originally intended to be a double album. I don't think it counts.

record labels were trying to proliferate sales for the new genre they had just started pouring money into, demanding shorter album cycles, constant touring, etc. nowadays because of the variety of representation the majors have, artists can be given time to work on things, take time off of touring and recording, etc. it's not like Joanna Newsom spends five years attentively crafting a new album. a lot of that time is downtime where she's just enjoying her success and relaxing.

possibly due to monetary reasons

because the record industry became slightly less exploitative in the 80s

Modern artists are busier typically in order to make a living/ maintain their spotlight.
Most musicians usually have to work outside of music in order have a livable income.
Bigger artists usually prefer to tour for longer stretches (18~ months) off a single album as well as red carpet/ large publicity events.

1. More time needed in studio because of effects, eq, etc. It used to take a week for some.
2. Albums don't make money, touring does. So there's less of an incentive.
3. Lack of competition (for greatness rather than attention)

Might be that music made more money in the past so record companies would shell out more money for artists to make shit allowing them to do it quicker. Since album sales generally don't make that much they can't just put out album after album, especially if they need to tour, which most bands do. Keep in mind that at least for the Beatles they stopped playing live at a certain point and just spent the time they would have been playing live making music in the studio. Though that doesn't apply to the others.

Technology has democratized music in a lot of ways. Bands that would never make it 30 years ago now can gain a loyal cult following. The record industry can't keep up with the times and the artists they promote have less influence because of it.

yeah, he needs to release more music

A lot of that was the labels, not just the artists churning out albums because they wanted to. The marketing has changed so artist's don't "need" to put out an album every 12 months.

Linkin Park actually did the inverse. Their earlier albums had 3-4 year breaks inbetween but since ATS they've sped up, putting something out once every year and a half to 2 years. Also, Radiohead used to put out music at a decent clip until In Rainbows - 6 albums in 10 years isn't exactly slow.

>More time needed in studio because of effects, eq, etc.
But that took more time in the past because mixing and mastering had to be done on tape, which took a lot more time.

It did but that's usually just putting together single takes and panning it around (as many takes as that would be). Now that it's easier to edit, people can be a lot more picky than just satisfied and end up changing the pitch of a note here and there, fixing the rhythm on that drum part, lowering the low frequency on the center vocals, fixing where it clips, and the list goes on.

This. Musicians have a million more tools to work with nowadays, forging the right sounds takes a while

Pressure from record companies to tour and advertise more.

OP here. Most of those 70s albums were good. If studio pressure can create good art, shouldn't we miss the studio system?

Because musicians are lazy scum.

Quality over quantity.

But those artists have quality and quantity.

>The Beatles
>Led Zeppelin
>David Bowie
>quality

lmao

Yes, correctamundo, MSNF. As voted for the people, by the people on RYM, Acclaimed Music, etc.

>"Look mom! I'm being contrarian on the internet"

so you guys just drone popular opinions? you can't think for yourselves?

No, I've enjoyed those artist's music too, many times over, before I read a single review on any of them.

no

and being contrarian for the sake of it is not thinking for yourself

lol okay sure

I'm not "contrarian" there are plenty of popular artists I love. even some on OP's list, specifically Bob Dylan and Pink Floyd.

Believe what you want, I know i'm right. Your thoughts are a delusion.

Radiohead is a pathetic example for artist

Better than half the bands listed, faggot. They shit all over LCD Soundsystem.

>Radiohead
>Better than half the bands listed
kekd

Good argument

Literally better than everyone listed except Bob Dylan and Joanna Newsom.

But still, they were averaging an album every two years up until HTTT. Even older artists would usually take more and more time to release an album after a while into their career.

You're not being contrarian because you don't care for Bowie, Zeppelin or The Beatles. You're being a contrarian because you're laughing at people for labeling them as good quality. Even if you don't like them it shouldn't surprise when people hold then in high regard.

I like Radiohead but you're droning so hard right now it isn't funny.

It has more to do with artists OP chose than Radiohead. Neil Young created boring music for boring people. Led Zeppelin reappropriated black music for white audiences while literally stealing tracks. Pink Floyd is prog wank for pretentious nerds. The Beatles were good, but overrated. Bowie had a good period in the late 70s but was otherwise pretty meh. And LCD Soundsystem is legit Brooklyn pitchfork garbage.

Because Internet and music piracy

b8

This is a straight talk only zone, friend

>Neil Young created boring music for boring people

>The Beatles were good, but overrated

>likes Radiohead

You quoted me. Good work.

Stop droning. It isn't funny.

>stop having opinions REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Can you reply like a normal human being?

Radiohead is literally the most overrated and boring band in the history of music.

how old are you for god's sake

Hyperbole that makes you come across as a 14 year old whose favorite band was insulting. The grey ocean of adult contemporary proves you wrong, objectively.

Can reply without ad hominems and memes? It's like speaking to someone who grew up on the internet.

Anyone who thinks this hasn't listened to much music.

I would like to remind everyone in this thread that thinking that Radiohead is the greatest band of all time is a perfectly legitimate opinion

samefagging has killed this thread

12 years*

Now that you got that out of your system... How old are you?

Too old to be posting here, and old enough that the anti popular music affectation has worn off.

Not old enough to realize Radiohead is mediocre

Old enough to be past the phase where I felt I had to signal my taste to everyone and use it to differentiate status.

>Better than half the bands listed, faggot. They shit all over LCD Soundsystem.

>Old enough to be past the phase where I felt I had to signal my taste to everyone and use it to differentiate status.

Oh, sweet irony.

Yes, more musicians should strive to be like Death Grips

That's called having an honest opinion that isn't afraid of going against accepted Sup Forums taste. That's not showing off or using my taste to affect a more patrician and arty persona.

Seems to have been a 60s-70s thing; by the 80s most artists were taking more time between albums unless they were Prince and recorded an average of one album every six weeks.

Labels.

it's the best when people go back and forth asserting something is "better" all thread long while managing to not once discuss the music or what they like about it

So I use my opinion to differentiate status and you are honest for doing the same thing. Yeah.

No, you're using your opinion in an elitist manner by defining yourself by what you aren't (a pleb). I bet you like Trout Mask Replica.

I think at least some of it had to do with the event of music videos in the 80s; having to produce those adds additional time and budget versus the 70s.

Yo King Gizzard and the Wizard Lizard put out like 2 or 3 albums a year senpai

I haven't defined myself as anything. Respect yourself.

You defined yourself by a hyperbolic to the point of being ridiculous hatred of Radiohead.

Also cocaine

Mutt Lange ruined everything. Those albums he made with Def Leppard and AC/DC would have so many singles, it'd take 3 years to release them all. He later did the same thing with Shania Twain.

Of course, Radiohead doesn't release nearly every song as a single, but it still changed the way music was marketed.

Studio pressure led to some legendary disasters like Victim Of Love and Love Beach.

Said the fanboy

GOT ME

I think Michael Jackson was also one of the first to do that and of course he also took extensive breaks between albums. And again, releasing mountains of singles was an artifact of the MTV age.

Death Grips have made at least one album a year since like 2011

Don't forget that Mutt Lange also was responsible for that horrible laboratory-slick 80s production.

This is true. I just looked up Pink Floyd's discog on Wiki. In the early days they'd release a new album about once a year. But after Dark Side, it was 2 years up until The Wall. (Then four years until The Final Cunt).

Chill

Excerpt there's way more going on in Radiohead songs than the Beatles or led Zeppelin. They spend months just mixing and layering

There's nothing wrong with clean production. It just depends on what's right for the music. Do you only listen to lo fi or something

nice one bro

Kind of. He turned Def Lep from a metal band into (basically) a power pop band. But he was far from the only guy doing the slick production thing. Trevor Horne and Hugh Padham both were doing similar things.

70s albums were actually tremendously overstuffed; productions got super-elaborate and album budgets topped the $1 million mark for the first time.

youtube.com/watch?v=2VF4J9xzIVs

vs

youtube.com/watch?v=0UIB9Y4OFPs

With all the pro tools and other digital tools, you can easily do that in minutes. Just take an already recorded track, add whatever plugins you want, paste it into the song. Done.

Pyromania [Mercury, 1983]

Fuckin' right new heavy metal is different from old heavy metal. The new stuff is about five silly beats per minute faster. And the new metal singers sound free, white, and more-or-less twenty one. C+

>Mutt Lange ruined everything.
Mutt Lange made the best sounding rock record ever - Highway to Hell

He was fine on Highway and BIB, it's starting with Pyromania that he lost it.

>demanding shorter album cycles, constant touring, etc.
is that why the kpop industry is so awful then?

Also, due diligence.

I still can't believe somebody takes this guy seriously. I liked the Sonic Youth song "I Killed Christgau with my big fucking dick"

No, there's 10 years between Pablo and HttT