Ramble Tamble

I've been listening to a lot of Creedence Clearwater Revival lately and it's got me thinking about how prolific artists were thirty or forty years ago. Whatever happened to that? In the sixties and seventies, it was perfectly normal for nearly every major band to have a new album out every year, or every other year at most. Today, a band is considered productive if they have an album out every two years, and even that's usually now the exception.

The Beatles were together from 1962 to 1970. In those eight years, they recorded and released thirteen albums that changed pop music. The Rolling Stones released ten equally important albums in the same amount of time between 1964 and 1972 (disregarding the reconfigured US versions for both the Stones and the Beatles). In two years, between 1968 and 1970, the aformentioned CCR released six albums, all classics. The list of bands is endless and continues into the seventies and eighties.

Let's look at some of today's big acts. The White Stripes and Muse have both been around roughly eleven years; the Stripes have recorded six albums while Muse have done five. Radiohead have been around more than fifteen years and have only recorded seven. This year, Gorillaz recorded just their third album in their nine year existence. Green Day, who had five albums in the nineties, only had three this past decade.

And it doesn't just apply to modern artists. Tom Petty, who never really took extended breaks from recording for the first half of his career, has only recorded seven albums in the past twenty years, as opposed to the eight he recorded in only thirteen years between 1976 and 1989. AC/DC's output dropped drastically after 1990's Razor's Edge; they've since recorded just three albums. So what's the deal?

Now to be fair, I know there are outside forces that can keep a band out of the studio. With touring being about the only way they can make money anymore, bands are on the road constantly, and world tours can take well over a year (yet they still can't make it to Memphis?). Band members also often take on side projects or form other bands. Jack White has spent virtually all his time away from Meg with either the Raconteurs, the Dead Weather, or Loretta Lynn. Damon Albarn had his The Good, the Bad, and the Queen and the "Monkey: Journey to the West" production. Josh Homme and Green Day each had two bands on the side in the last ten years. To that end, it can be argued that these side projects and solo outings can fill in those gaps in between the main band's albums, as do live albums, compilations, etc. These can be hit or miss, though, and are especially risky if the finished product is too different from what the band's audience is used to.

The point is that super groups and side projects are nothing new and neither is touring. During the height of Beatlemania, the Beatles recorded six albums between 1962 and 1966, and that's in the midst of several world tours and the makings of two films. Led Zeppelin played two-hour shows nearly every night in the early days and managed to crank out four great albums in three years. Cream, the original super group, was just as productive. And just to beat the dead CCR horse again: six albums in two years. That's amid world tours as well.

But I know, there are other factors involved. There's inner turmoil, general fatigue and family time (especially for the older acts), and sometimes things that just come out of the blue that can't be helped. Pre-American Idiot, Green Day had already started work on their next album not long after Warning in 2000 when the tapes were stolen, delaying their work but ultimately leading to one of their best records. Wolfmother took three years to release a second record due to inner turmoil that led to the replacement of the rhythm section. There are probably other reasons for it that I don't fully understand. I'm sure the record industry would prefer it's artists to be making money touring rather than losing money making albums at a time when CD sales are sliding and pirates are bootlegging everything.

Of course, it can be argued (rightfully so) that these long breaks between recording is a good thing that breeds longevity for a band. Green Day and Pearl Jam have both been around over twenty years now, as have the Black Crowes, though they recently announced an indefinite hiatus. Anybody who's been in a band, a stage production, hell, just in a car with a group of people for an extended period will tell you that too much time spent with the same people can get tense. As great as they were, the Beatles only lasted eight years and they had begun disintegrating in only five. Pink Floyd spent every year of the seventies either in the studio or on tour together and by the end of the decade they despised each other. Of course, this theory doesn't seem to work for the now-dead Oasis and the Gallagher brothers, nor does it explain how the hell the Rolling Stones are still together (or alive).

Could these down times be improving the quality of each new album? Possibly; it could be that more time in between albums gives writers more time to flesh out their work properly so that the music doesn't sound rushed. Still, plenty of great albums have been created during the most tumultuous band schedules. I do realize, though, that Neil Young released quite a few albums in the eighties, nearly all of which sucked (though he was going through some rough times), as did the Stones.

So is this a problem? Not really; with everything else confronting music today--piracy, sliding sales, a rough economy, autotune, Ke$ha--this hardly qualifies as a problem. I just think it would be refreshing to find a band with a good sound that can produce full albums (not EPs, not remixes, not compilations) every year or two. Of course, I get the feeling this is all just wishful thinking and it's not likely a band like that will come along any time soon. None worth hearing, anyway. Prove me wrong, music world!