CreedFeed Community - View Single Post

guitardude1985 · 12-14-2005, 11:22 AM

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd) if you look at bands across the board, it really doesn't seem to make that much of a difference. today, 2 years is about standard. sure, back in the day, lots of bands put out a couple albums a year perhaps, but not all of them were excellent. sure, bands like the Stones and the Beatles come to mind, but there was prolly no dearth of average bands that came up with new material once or twice a year. today, it seems like there's some indie bands that try and go with this idea but, although some of them may be striving for a Zeppelin-feel inasmuch as they put out new stuff every 12 mos, I can't say I'm particularly fond of most of them. On the other hand, there's great bands like Boston that have put out, what, 4 or 5 albums in a good 30 years. sure, they might sound a little calculated, and they sold pretty well, but they're still solid.

Well, also back in the late 1960's all the way through the 70's and mid 80's studio time was expensive as hell and the reason why led zeppelin, pink floyd etc put out the albums they did was because when your manager is pyaing big bucks to have you record an album it only makes sense that the effort and thought prossess it put in. Today, with the conveinent advantage of the home studio bands today can and I think put out overwhealmingly medecre records because they don't have to pay for studio time. However, I do see somewhat of a paradox here. With all of these bands with home studios I think it would be much easier to put out nourmours albums a year. Thats just my view I could be wrong.

12-14-2005, 11:22 AM	#13
guitardude1985 USER INFO » Status: Naked Toddler Posts: 200 Joined: Dec 2005 Currently: Offline	Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd) if you look at bands across the board, it really doesn't seem to make that much of a difference. today, 2 years is about standard. sure, back in the day, lots of bands put out a couple albums a year perhaps, but not all of them were excellent. sure, bands like the Stones and the Beatles come to mind, but there was prolly no dearth of average bands that came up with new material once or twice a year. today, it seems like there's some indie bands that try and go with this idea but, although some of them may be striving for a Zeppelin-feel inasmuch as they put out new stuff every 12 mos, I can't say I'm particularly fond of most of them. On the other hand, there's great bands like Boston that have put out, what, 4 or 5 albums in a good 30 years. sure, they might sound a little calculated, and they sold pretty well, but they're still solid. Well, also back in the late 1960's all the way through the 70's and mid 80's studio time was expensive as hell and the reason why led zeppelin, pink floyd etc put out the albums they did was because when your manager is pyaing big bucks to have you record an album it only makes sense that the effort and thought prossess it put in. Today, with the conveinent advantage of the home studio bands today can and I think put out overwhealmingly medecre records because they don't have to pay for studio time. However, I do see somewhat of a paradox here. With all of these bands with home studios I think it would be much easier to put out nourmours albums a year. Thats just my view I could be wrong.