....before the 1980's? I always hear people saying that artists these days have to release albums much more quickly now to stay relevant, but I disagree. The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, David Bowie, The Cure, The Ramones, The Carpentars, Barbra Streisand, Diana Ross, Donna Summer, Prince, on a lower scale Fleetwood Mac, Heart, Depeche Mode, Siouxsie & The Banshees, The Smiths and so many others were releasing album after album in quick sucession from the 60's-80's. Often they would release more than one album in a single year. I'm pretty sure Diana Ross and Barbra Streisand released an album or two every year in the 70's. Now it usually takes a couple of years between albums. It seems like things started to slow down in the 80's. Mariah Carey released a ton of albums in the 90's, though.....But it seems weird to me now that, for example, No Doubt released two albums between 1999 and 2000......And do you think this is a good or bad thing? I think even though so many artists were releasing albums so quickly, it did't really take away from their quality.....

Yeah, I've thought about this too. The Beatles even put out two albums a year on a few occasions! I think this lasted until the CD era started taking off c. 1987. Before then, most albums had about 8-10 songs, and usually artists and bands would do one per year, maybe up to 2 1/2 years at most. Hall and Oates are a good example of this.

Once CDs got popular, it was common for albums to start getting about 12 songs because of the conveinence and you could fit more than you could on vinyl (I didn't even fully realize until later that tapes were kind of like a midformat, which is why they co-existed with CDs for so long). Although even then, I don't think it was until the mid-late '90s that it became more and more commonplace for artists to have 3, even 5 year breaks between albums.

To answer the question personally, I prefer the older way, although music itself was better in the '80s and '90s IMO. I'd rather get 8 songs per year (especially if most are good), than 18 average songs (with maybe 4 good ones mixed in with the throwaways) every few years. Lots of pop/punk bands do this.

Album releases are now carefully timed for marketing purposes.

Yeah, I've thought about this too. The Beatles even put out two albums a year on a few occasions! I think this lasted until the CD era started taking off c. 1987. Before then, most albums had about 8-10 songs, and usually artists and bands would do one per year, maybe up to 2 1/2 years at most. Hall and Oates are a good example of this.

Once CDs got popular, it was common for albums to start getting about 12 songs because of the conveinence and you could fit more than you could on vinyl (I didn't even fully realize until later that tapes were kind of like a midformat, which is why they co-existed with CDs for so long). Although even then, I don't think it was until the mid-late '90s that it became more and more commonplace for artists to have 3, even 5 year breaks between albums.

To answer the question personally, I prefer the older way, although music itself was better in the '80s and '90s IMO. I'd rather get 8 songs per year (especially if most are good), than 18 average songs (with maybe 4 good ones mixed in with the throwaways) every few years. Lots of pop/punk bands do this.


True, it did seem like the greater gap between albums seemed to occur around the same time CDs came out, although there was the occasional two year gap before that, like with Boston's albums.  On the whole though, albums did come out much more quickly than they do now, where an artist releasing an album once a year is almost unheard of, although Rihanna is trying her best (shes released one album a year since 2005).  

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if albums don't even exist twenty years from now.  No one can doubt that downloading has put a greater emphasis on the single and more people will usually choose to download the single rather than the whole album.  While there are still million selling albums, albums are still clearly losing the power that they had pre-downloading.  With this in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if sometime over the next twenty years, they start to give up on albums and start choosing to release only singles, kind of like the 1950s.  Its not the best future in my opinion, but I think its more likely than you might think.

That's because artists spend much more time recording albums, now. Back in the 50s and 60s, artists would record albums in a matter of days or a few weeks, at the most. Now, artists spend months, or even over a year, recording albums. I guess that maybe with all the improvements in recording technology, artists started wanting to utilize the technology as much as possible to perfect their work. I'm not sure if all that extra time and effort has resulted in the quality of albums being noticeably better, though.  :-\\

Singles as well were released rapidly in the 50s and 60s. 

Some artists had 50 or more hits in 10 years

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if albums don't even exist twenty years from now.  No one can doubt that downloading has put a greater emphasis on the single and more people will usually choose to download the single rather than the whole album.  While there are still million selling albums, albums are still clearly losing the power that they had pre-downloading.  With this in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if sometime over the next twenty years, they start to give up on albums and start choosing to release only singles, kind of like the 1950s.  Its not the best future in my opinion, but I think its more likely than you might think.


I could see that happening  :\'(. Defintely.....I really wish all the downloading would stop, though I admit I have downloaded some songs, but I usually end up buying the album they're from anyway. But then again, most of my CD's are bought used. I know in the 80's, artists were complaining about used record shops. I frequent those......as well as half.com for my CD's.

My brother says that in the 60's and 70's, many artists started going out of their ways to make solid albums, like The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zepplin, David Bowie, etc.. In the 50's, he says that if a pop artist even bothered to release an album, it would have a few intended hits, and the rest was purely filler, most likely a bunch of half-hearted cover songs. While I think there is defintely alot of filler to be found on pop/rock albums from the 80's to today--especially from "bubble gum" artists--I think more care in put into them then they were in the 50's.

Singles as well were released rapidly in the 50s and 60s. 

Some artists had 50 or more hits in 10 years
I agree.

Album releases are now carefully timed for marketing purposes.

Didn't that start in the late '60s when the record companies realized the LP was going to be the cash cow, rather than the single?

When I look at the discographies of my favorite artists from the '80s (Depeche Mode, New Order, The Cure, The Smiths, etc.) the average length from studio album to studio album was perhaps 18 months.  On the upswing of the career they would do one a year, often throwing in a best of compilation, a singles anthology, live album, or a remix compilation in between.  On the way down, studio albums were more sparse while band members fought, bought mansions on different continents, got hooked on dope, did solo projects, and died. 
::)

Depeche Mode is a prime example:

DEPECHE MODE
Years active: 1980--present

Discography
(excluding singles, videos, unofficial releases, bootlegs, appearances on soundtracks/various artist comps, and Recoil material released after Wilder quit the band)

Speak & Spell (11/07/81)   Studio
A Broken Frame (9/27/82)  Studio
Construction Time Again (8/22/83)   Studio
Some Great Reward (8/27/84)   Studio
People Are People (1984)   Compilation for North American markets
Catching Up With Depeche Mode (1985)  ibid.
The Singles 81>85 (10/14/85)  Compilation, European release
Black Celebration (3/17/86)   Studio
1 + 2 (1986)  Alan Wilder, Recoil project studio
Music for the Masses (9/28/87)   Studio
Hydrology (1/25/88) Alan Wilder, Recoil project studio
101 (3/13/89)   Live
Counterfeit e.p. (6/12/89)  Martin Gore solo studio
Violator (3/19/90)  Studio
Singles Box, Volumes 1,2, & 3 (1991)  Compilation, volumes released separately
Bloodline (4/14/92)  Alan Wilder, Recoil project studio
Songs of Faith and Devotion (3/22/93)   Studio
Songs of Faith and Devotion Live (12/06/93)   Live
Ultra (4/14/97)   Studio
The Singles 86>98 (9/28/1998)  Compilation
The Singles 81>85 (1998)  Compilation, North American release
Exciter (5/14/01)  Studio
Countereit-2  (4/28/03)   Martin Gore solo studio
Paper Monsters (6/02--6/03/03) David Gahan solo studio
Remixes 81--04  (10/24/04)   Compilation
Singles Box, Volumes 4,5, & 6 (2004)   Compilation, volumes released seperately
Playing the Angel (10/17/05)   Studio
The Best of, Volume 1 (11/13/06)  Compilation
The Complete Depeche Mode (12/19/06)  Compilation for i-Tunes
Singles Box, Volumes 7 & 8  (2007)  Compilation, volumes released seperately (tentative)
Hourglass (10/22--10/23/07)   David Gahan solo studio (tentative)

Notice the disbursal pattern of official Depeche Mode studio albums 81--05
For a band that has endured as long as DM, they have released only two official live albums (though bootlegs abound), and members have released few solo projects for a band that has been around for 27 years!
Excessive compilation releases clutter the band's discography, and much of this material is redundant, especially for those of us who collected the singles when they were released as singles!
I did not include any post-Speak & Spell projects by Vince Clarke because Clarke officially quit after the first album.

IMHO, DM released "Violator" in 1990 and did not release another worthwhile studio album until "Playing the Angel" release in 2005.  Of course, upon hearing "Songs of Faith and Devotion" and of David Gahan's love for Grunge, I though it was over for DM for good.

However, "Playing the Angel" was their best studio album since "Music for the Masses."
:)






   

True, it did seem like the greater gap between albums seemed to occur around the same time CDs came out, although there was the occasional two year gap before that, like with Boston's albums.  On the whole though, albums did come out much more quickly than they do now, where an artist releasing an album once a year is almost unheard of, although Rihanna is trying her best (shes released one album a year since 2005).  

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if albums don't even exist twenty years from now.  No one can doubt that downloading has put a greater emphasis on the single and more people will usually choose to download the single rather than the whole album.  While there are still million selling albums, albums are still clearly losing the power that they had pre-downloading.  With this in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if sometime over the next twenty years, they start to give up on albums and start choosing to release only singles, kind of like the 1950s.  Its not the best future in my opinion, but I think its more likely than you might think.

Good point I forgot to respond to. For better or worse, you're probably right. I could actually see it happening even sooner than that, like around the early-mid 2010s. What's also possible is that it might get to a point where the primary source of music is singles, with only really "hot" and/or profitable artists with huge fanbases releasing full albums. I hope they don't ever fully go away, but like you said, it's easy to see they aren't what they once were in terms of their 1964-2002ish popularity peak.

This is really unfortunate for music fans in general as well as the industry, because there's just a cool feeling about the experience that you don't get with singles. For instance, discovering an unplayed album track that you actually liked more than the radio song which made you buy it in the first place. There's less surprises and variety, but at the same time, less public demand too.

I've always embraced the notion of albums being cohesive artistic statements rather than a collection of songs. I think the album format will remain popular (especially in rock), but I actually predict there will be growth in E.P's/mini-albums of 4-6 songs which really suit the internet music/exchange distribution format.

And on to albums being released more often back in the day - yes, that was true, and was especially true of commercial artists. The reason for them releasing so much material was marketing and whatnot. Hard to believe Elton John released 5 full-length LPs in 1971 and toured extensively. The Beatles were most prolific when they were under greatest commercial expectation (during the peak of Beatlemania from 63-65). Ironically, you could say, their output was less prolific (though some argue of a higher quality) when they stopped touring for good to become a studio band. From Rubber Soul to Let It Be they released an album ever year.