Productivity vs quality

This has surely been discussed before but do you sometimes feel that some bands/musicians are too prolific, release too much music too often and tend to neglect quality control?

As a fan, do you keep up and buy everything no matter what, or do you get selective and skip new albums? Who would you praise for being very productive and consistent?

Releasing several albums a year, or at least one album each year, was quite common a few decades ago. Some bands had amazing runs in a very short time. Can’t really think of a recent example. As a fan of Ty Segall, Anton Newcombe (Brian Jonestown Massacre) and other very prolific bands I have been frequently underwhelmed these past few years and decided to stop collecting each and every release. How about you?

 

When you cannot sell one in large numbers, sometimes it makes sense to sell many releases to a willing fan base, it has done Neil Young and Current 93 very well.

 

This is tricky.
A dance between creativity and striking while the iron is hot.
A prime example of the latter is ZZ Top's Fandango, one side new material and the other live filler.

 

This question is pretty irrelevant when artist make more touring. And it's not even close today. With the decline of sales, royalties aren't paying. You do a tour and you sell tickets, swag and probably get a share of the concessions.

The only artist I can think of that is probably releasing too much material is Van Morrison with 4 albums in 14 months.

Keep in mind, I'm still waiting for a Tool album. I waited 14 years for A Perfect Circles album. I might be waiting that long for Tool's.

 

As a general rule, I like hearing the "best" of every artist as opposed to just hearing "anything" they may release. It's also the reason I aesthetically favor the notion of "albums" rather than CD's or unlimited downloads. I don't necessarily want "bang for the buck". I just enjoy quality.

Of course, like all things, the notion of quality is subjective. Someone may think one album by an artist they don't enjoy is already "too much", whereas they can't get enough of another artist.

 

The first band I thought of is The Beach Boys in their earlier days when they were releasing an average of almost three albums per year and including obvious filler like "Denny's Drums". Still they managed to make a lot of remarkable music during that time.

 

My purchasing decision is solely based on whether I like the sound 0r not - artist irrelevant.

 

It seems that during the times when it was common for an artist or band to produce an album or two each year, the quality of music was higher compared to later years, when 5 years gap between albums is considered normal.

 

All the available notes have been used to death...........

 

Growing up in the sixties when two albums per year was the norm, I got spoiled. I let my favorite artists slip a bit and coast during the 1970's when one album per year became the norm. But honestly, less than that and I have to ask myself, "What happened? Did you go back to school to study law?"

Buying CCR albums every few months in 1969 or jumping from Hüsker Dü's Zen Arcade to New Day Rising to Flip Your Wig. Bands burning on all cylinders, that's what it's about. There was a time when Beck [Hansen] should have been putting out an album every six months, but he played the industry game and milked every release for a couple of years. I wish that the marketplace allowed/encouraged Bradford Cox and Deerhunter to issue music on a more regular basis. Hiss Golden Messenger has been doing it right in recent years.

Young and vital artists should be prolific, IMHO.