Stretching (Evidence/Careers)

So, in discussions with other music geek friends, I've been accused slightly of stretching the evidence to cover the theory - arbitrarily putting albums in and out of my "prime period" to get my ten years.  That may be fair - as my dad said (paraphrased), just because he never released an album as great as Blood on the Tracks doesn't mean he didn't release an album's worth of great material afterward.

Partly, I think that is still my point.  Partly, that may be fair, but I respond - sing me a Bob Dylan song, and let's see if the first one to come to mind falls in that period or out.  One of the things that is interesting about Dylan vs. the other musicians I named is that as a musician noted primarily for his lyrics, his development probably looked a lot different from, say, the Beatles.  On the other hand, I was thinking that the Stones were probably a lot more resilient considering their band chemistry and groove-intuition was so good they could do basically anything.  I don't know, the Stones to me were more uneven throughout, but if I'm really honest, you've got to give them at least about 15 or 16 years.

Also, REM was pointed out to me, and an argument ensued, involving the relative merits of Murmur which I stick solidly in the "early" career phase and which others put in the "Classic REM" phase.

Well, we'll see.  Anyway, the other thing that occurred to me as I was putting together last night's post was that If I compare the Beatles to Pearl Jam, the Beatles eight years covers 12 or 13 albums (depending on your nationality) whereas Pearl Jam has about 5.


This has become the norm, actually.  The Beatles released two albums a year at the beginning of their career, and slowed down only slightly to one a year (plus misc. singles and EP's) by the end.  Let it Be is in 1970, but they recorded it between '68 and '69, so three albums in two years?  Breakneck speed by today's standard.

Modern bands release an album every two or three years.  They might release three in a period that would have cover the Beatles entire career.  Part of that is touring - the Beatles toured like mad for the first couple of years, but nothing to compare with the marathon tours that are now standard for a hot rising band.  I heard that Linkin Park toured for two years straight, and I don't doubt it.  Bands also take six to eight months to record an album now.  They spend forever writing the songs, record say twenty, of which ten get on the album.

What's surprising, then, is that the quality of the albums isn't head and shoulders above classic albums.  Let me be clear, I don't think they are worse either - nothing bugs me like the unspoken assumption that older albums are just inherently better; I'll stack Siamese Dream and Pinkerton up against Goats Head Soup and any Zep album you want.  But for all the extra work, you'd think we'd hear some difference.  I'm not talking about just the slight sound quality improvement over the last twenty years; most of that is due to technological improvements that have nothing to do with the bands, and there are plenty of fantastic low-fi albums to prove it wrong.  But, the musicianship isn't astonishingly better.  If they're investing that much more time and energy, what are they getting out of it?  Especially because (as far as my flawed paradigm can show) is that it's not albums, but years that matter career-wise.

I'm not sure what the point of this post was, but I do feel like I'm circling around something...