I'll use Rihanna as the figurehead of this thread since she is most known for this.

Has anyone else noticed singers are releasing their material faster than they have before? Even a gap as long as two years between albums is becoming excessively long. The new trend is only a 1-1.5 year gap between albums at the most. Let's look...

Rihanna - Loud (only 1 year after Rated R), 6th album (planned for less than 1.5 years after Loud)
Lady GaGa - Born This Way (only 1.5 years after The Fame Monster)
Drake - Take Care (less than 1.5 years after Thank Me Later)
Chris Brown - F.A.M.E. (less than 1.5 years after Graffiti), Fortune (planned for only 1 year after F.A.M.E.)
Eminem - Recovery (only 1 year after Relapse)
The Black Eyed Peas - The Beginning (less than 1.5 years after The E.N.D. [The Energy Never Dies])
Maroon 5 - 5th studio album (planned for less than 1.5 years after Hands All Over)

So... do you all like the new trend of quicker releases or not? Does it downgrade quality?

I do like that this is being done more often. It harks back to earlier times in music when they would release albums even two times a year, and it was great. I think long breaks between albums are almost always unnecessary.

And it seems to place no bearing on quality. Depends on the situation, though.

This is because...

1. People are more ADD now, they want things fast or not at all.
2. Becoming famous is easier, so you've gotta fight harder for your spot
3. Music is easier to make now. More electronic stuff, you can do more things in separate places, etc.

I like quicker releases, simply because I'm fairly impatient and I always look forward to new material from my faves. I couldn't imagine having to wait 5 years for 'Bad' to come out after 'Thriller'. :laugh:

It doesn't always downgrade quality. Depends on the situation/who it is/etc.

Not everyone who does it is as successful. Rihanna is the only one who can truly pull it off every single year. The Beginning is considered a lessor to The E.N.D.

I do like that this is being done more often. It harks back to earlier times in music when they would release albums even two times a year, and it was great. I think long breaks between albums are almost always unnecessary.

And it seems to place no bearing on quality. Depends on the situation, though.

I don't think it does either.

This is because...

1. People are more ADD now, they want things fast or not at all.
2. Becoming famous is easier, so you've gotta fight harder for your spot
3. Music is easier to make now. More electronic stuff, you can do more things in separate places, etc.

#3 is really important. M5, for example, recorded a lot of the 5th album on the computer while on the road (GaGa for BTW as well).

I like to wait or the album because i dont want a half ass record..i dont want something thats rushed

But Gaga's first and second studio albums have a 3 year span :eli:

I like to wait or the album because i dont want a half ass record..i dont want something thats rushed

Doesn't usually happen, though.

But Gaga's first and second studio albums have a 3 year span :eli:

And a rerelease with 8 new songs inbetween. GaGa doesn't take breaks.

And a rerelease with 8 new songs inbetween. GaGa doesn't take breaks.

*Hasn't

I don't mind. I'm glad I don't have to wait 4 or 5 years to get another Maroon 5 album. As long as they don't sell out completely. I loved "Hands All Over". I would love to hear similar material (and some progression of course), but even though I like "Moves Like Jagger" I don't want them making a full album of Moves Like Jaggers.

And a rerelease with 8 new songs inbetween. GaGa doesn't take breaks.

Well a re-release doesn't really count, it's not it's own studio album with like 20 new songs, like BTW has

Doesn't usually happen, though.
http://i54.tinypic.com/oa1a94.jpg
iknow sadly

I do like that this is being done more often. It harks back to earlier times in music when they would release albums even two times a year, and it was great. I think long breaks between albums are almost always unnecessary.

And it seems to place no bearing on quality. Depends on the situation, though.

If the radio and TV were our only access to our faves like back in the 60s and 70s, then yeah it'd make more sense for them to have short gaps in between albums. But we're living in a multimedia age where it's a lot harder to slip out of the public's consciousness and much easier to risk overexposure compared to the decades past. Not to mention that recording technology is radically different than in the olden days, and artists do a lot more promo and are out on tour a lot longer. So there's a lot of good reasons as to why artists today typically take longer breaks in between albums than their predecessors did.

I think if they continue to change their sound it's ok, but if they continue to hash out new music without any type of evolvement the public will grow tired of them. As a Rihanna fan, I fear for her oversaturating the market, but at the same time she changes her sound and image every album. As long as they're bringing something new to the table I think it's fine.

I actually think most of the albums with quick releases were better than their predecessors (BTW, F.A.M.E., Hands All Over, Recovery), except The Beginning. Take Care is looking to be better than Thank Me Later.

It depends on the kind of artist who employs this method.

IMO Gaga has crammed way too much into the last 3 years and her work has suffered a lot as a result.

Rihanna's involvement in her music is very limited so putting out an album every Black Friday doesn't affect the output of her work. Others get it all ready for her.

It only took less than a year for Rihanna to finish Loud and all songs were flawless. :o


I don't like waiting, too. :p

It depends on the kind of artist who employs this method.

IMO Gaga has crammed way too much into the last 3 years and her work has suffered a lot as a result.

Rihanna's involvement in her music is very limited so putting out an album every Black Friday doesn't affect the output of her work. Others get it all ready for her.


Except Rihanna is the executive producer of her past two albums, so she decides what songs make the final cut, and who she records with.

http://i54.tinypic.com/oa1a94.jpg
iknow sadly

I meant that they usually are high quality, even if they're released quickly.

If the radio and TV were our only access to our faves like back in the 60s and 70s, then yeah it'd make more sense for them to have short gaps in between albums. But we're living in a multimedia age where it's a lot harder to slip out of the public's consciousness and much easier to risk overexposure compared to the decades past. Not to mention that recording technology is radically different than in the olden days, and artists do a lot more promo and are out on tour a lot longer. So there's a lot of good reasons as to why artists today typically take longer breaks in between albums than their predecessors did.

But you have to remember that our society is a society that always wants more. An artist can't promote an album for as long as they used to be able to because eventually people will have moved on from its sound, its image, or it itself (if it's so successful that enough people have heard it and/or purchased it). To remain relevant, an artist is required to release albums often now. Not to mention that this "desire for more" means that new artists are constantly coming up and usually being taken notice of, since our society can/could get bored of current artists. There's a fight to remain relevant that is fought with a constant rotation of music.

Except Rihanna is the executive producer of her past two albums, so she decides what songs make the final cut, and who she records with.

And comes up with concept, image, ideas, etc.

Wasn't Rated R recorded between Feb-Oct 2009??

If artist can do that sorta thing and create something along quality e.g Rated R then I'm all for it

Except Rihanna is the executive producer of her past two albums, so she decides what songs make the final cut, and who she records with.

I know.

Very limited =/= none.

Saying "yes, no, I want him, I'll take this, not that" isn't the kind of exhausting work that's going to mess her up if she releases albums annually.

This is not an involved artist, or IMO, much of an artist at all:

Def Jam started paying for Rihanna's recent single, "Man Down," more than a year ago. In March of 2010, the label held a writing camp in L.A. to create the songs for Rihanna's album, Loud.

At a writing camp, a record label hires the best music writers in the country and drops them into the nicest recording studios in town for about two weeks. It's a temporary version of the old music-industry hit factories, where writers and producers cranked out pop songs.

The writing camp for Rihanna's album "had to cost at least 200 grand," Daniels says. "It was at least forty guys out there. I was shocked at how much money they were spending! But, guess what? They got the whole album out of that one camp."

Let's not idolize these girls to the point where we don't see the truth right in front of our faces.

I know.

Very limited =/= none.

Saying "yes, no, I want him, I'll take this, not that" isn't the kind of exhausting work that's going to mess her up if she releases albums annually.

This is not an involved artist, or IMO, much of an artist at all:



Let's not idolize these girls to the point where we don't see the truth right in front of our faces.



That doesn't mean she didn't choose the songs. Just because you don't write your own music doesn't mean you are not involved. This seems to be a common misconception. Just because you sing doesn't mean you should write music. Just like how every songwriter isn't a singer either...

Idk why people always hold it against artists, like Rihanna. Who gives a damn that she's released 5 albums in 6 years. Her fans lover her for that. I mean, why wouldn't you want new music? Unless it's overdose of course.

That doesn't mean she didn't choose the songs. Just because you don't write your own music doesn't mean you are not involved. This seems to be a common misconception. Just because you sing doesn't mean you should write music. Just like how every songwriter isn't a singer either...

I realize that, but this thread is about putting out albums every year. What I'm saying is, if you're an artist like Rihanna, who has camps of 40 experts who cost millions making her songs for her, you can put out albums as frequently as you want. It's not going to overwhelm you and affect the quality of your music. That's what this thread is about: this recent trend where artists put out albums annually. My response is, if you're doing it the Rihanna way (with minimal** involvement), go for it. Otherwise, don't.

** minimal =/= none.

But you have to remember that our society is a society that always wants more. An artist can't promote an album for as long as they used to be able to because eventually people will have moved on from its sound, its image, or it itself (if it's so successful that enough people have heard it and/or purchased it). To remain relevant, an artist is required to release albums often now. Not to mention that this "desire for more" means that new artists are constantly coming up and usually being taken notice of, since our society can/could get bored of current artists. There's a fight to remain relevant that is fought with a constant rotation of music.

But there's also such a thing as overexposure. That's just as hard to recover from as fighting to get noticed at all. And it's now the norm for artists to be out on the road for a year or more, it's a little unfair to overwork them by making them go from the studio to the promotional circuit and then tour without a break in between.

I think it all depends on the artist, though. Some can survive the fickle nature of the industry, whereas others have to constantly strike while the iron's hot. I think pop stars have to fight for relevance the most.

I realize that, but this thread is about putting out albums every year. What I'm saying is, if you're an artist like Rihanna, who has camps of 40 experts who cost millions making her songs for her, you can put out albums as frequently as you want. It's not going to overwhelm you and affect the quality of your music. That's what this thread is about: this recent trend where artists put out albums annually. My response is, if you're doing it the Rihanna way (with minimal** involvement), go for it. Otherwise, don't.

** minimal =/= none.


And who are you to say there was minimal involvement? Executive Producer =/= Minimal Involvement

Not to mention aside from the music, she was the Art Director of the album.

I realize that, but this thread is about putting out albums every year. What I'm saying is, if you're an artist like Rihanna, who has camps of 40 experts who cost millions making her songs for her, you can put out albums as frequently as you want. It's not going to overwhelm you and affect the quality of your music. That's what this thread is about: this recent trend where artists put out albums annually. My response is, if you're doing it the Rihanna way (with minimal** involvement), go for it. Otherwise, don't.

** minimal =/= none.

What about the involved work like Recovery, Take Care, The Beginning, etc.? What are your thoughts on those albums?

Everything from TC is superb.

But there's also such a thing as overexposure. That's just as hard to recover from as fighting to get noticed at all. And it's now the norm for artists to be out on the road for a year or more, it's a little unfair to overwork them by making them go from the studio to the promotional circuit and then tour without a break in between.

I think it all depends on the artist, though. Some can survive the fickle nature of the industry, whereas others have to constantly strike while the iron's hot. I think pop stars have to fight to remain relevant the most.

Even though there is overexposure, it's not that hard to avoid. To be honest, a lot of pop stars nowadays half-ass things. They'll promote an album and go all out for a few months, then basically release singles and do nothing else for the rest of the era. Even though I despise that half-assed way of going about things, it does help to combat overexposure. People are less likely to get tired of you if they hear your music but don't hear your music, see you on TV, hear about you constantly in the news, etc. Also, changing sound and image help a lot with avoiding overexposure. I think it's becoming more necessary to stay in the public eye than it is to be scared of it as of now.

I know.

Very limited =/= none.

Saying "yes, no, I want him, I'll take this, not that" isn't the kind of exhausting work that's going to mess her up if she releases albums annually.

This is not an involved artist, or IMO, much of an artist at all:



Let's not idolize these girls to the point where we don't see the truth right in front of our faces.

So, she doesn't write / produce her music. It's not that big of a deal.

Even though there is overexposure, it's not that hard to avoid. To be honest, a lot of pop stars nowadays half-ass things. They'll promote an album and go all out for a few months, then basically release singles and do nothing else for the rest of the era. Even though I despise that half-assed way of going about things, it does help to combat overexposure. People are less likely to get tired of you if they hear your music but don't hear your music, see you on TV, hear about you constantly in the news, etc. Also, changing sound and image help a lot with avoiding overexposure. I think it's becoming more necessary to stay in the public eye than it is to be scared of it as of now.

I'm so glad not to be an aspiring musician today, though.

As long as the content is good, artists can release **** 24/7. Unless they're my faves, then you'll have to make sure the current era is over first. :eli:

It doesn't effect quality at all. I mean, GaGa had been working on Born This Way for really two years.

And who are you to say there was minimal involvement? Executive Producer =/= Minimal Involvement

Not to mention aside from the music, she was the Art Director of the album.

Until I find a credible source that tells me of her deep involvement, I'm going to have to rely on that NPR article that tells me of her lack of involvement. The same article that says she's the very last person paid, after everyone who actually made the music, and only IF the label recoups.

But this is turning into a Rihanna diss thread, when all I was saying was that an artist like her can afford to put out albums annually.

I think the only down fall is the music doesn't get to sink in. Just comparing now to 10 years ago: We've had like how many number ones/ so called "songs of the summer" this summer compared to say when CIL was reigning. When you think back ten years from now which songs will stand out to the general public from this year? I don't see me remembering LFN as if it was the soundtrack to my summer. I won't even remember Foster The People next year. And Moves Like Jagger won't be remembered that long.

Not only is there an over saturation of artists but singles as well. I can't even put a finger on the song that defines LOUD or Teenage Dream. But that's a bit off-topic.

EDIT: And you can't even separate some albums. Singles clash into one another. Or they don't fit in with the other songs released. (Eg Rude Boy- WMN? & CG- ET)

So, she doesn't write / produce her music. It's not that big of a deal.

Who said it was a big deal? She simply stated that that was the reason she can put out albums annually, since she doesn't have to put time into writing & producing.

Getting defensive for no reason.

Who said it was a big deal? She simply stated that that was the reason she can put out albums annually, since she doesn't have to put time into writing & producing.

Getting defensive for no reason.

That's not the part of her post I'm referring to. I'm referring to the fact that she said Rihanna has minimal influence on her music. Just because you don't write your music doesn't mean you can't relate to it or connect with it. But that's beside the point, I'm getting off topic.

That's not the part of her post I'm referring to. I'm referring to the fact that she said Rihanna has minimal influence on her music. Just because you don't write your music doesn't mean you can't relate to it or connect with it. But that's beside the point, I'm getting off topic.

Minimal involvement, not influence.

Hey Hiphy boo!

I think releasing albums over a short period has no issues. It doesn't really create excitement but I do enjoy that we get music every so often, because nowadays, society is so ADD with musicians.

MusicTalker, you always make the best threads... that people should actually be contributing to. *le sigh*

The second you take a break is the second the world moves on to the next... you just have to ***** new material to stay relevant (applies to certain artists and not all).

The second you take a break is the second the world moves on to the next... you just have to ***** new material to stay relevant (applies to certain artists and not all).

Applies to most. :o

Minimal involvement, not influence.

Ok.


I don't get the whole logic that if you wait to long to release music that you won't be picked up again. If you take a substantial break but then release a single that fits to your format, why would you have less of a chance of being successful?

I realize that, but this thread is about putting out albums every year. What I'm saying is, if you're an artist like Rihanna, who has camps of 40 experts who cost millions making her songs for her, you can put out albums as frequently as you want. It's not going to overwhelm you and affect the quality of your music. That's what this thread is about: this recent trend where artists put out albums annually. My response is, if you're doing it the Rihanna way (with minimal** involvement), go for it. Otherwise, don't.

** minimal =/= none.

To be fair, between 66-73, Pink Floyd put out an album a year. And they're considered classics. It's not THAT recent a trend. :celestial2:

To be fair, between 66-73, Pink Floyd put out an album a year. And they're considered classics. It's not THAT recent a trend. :celestial2:

And The Beatles. From 1962 to 1970 they put out two albums per year. And they're considered classics. :celestial2:

And The Beatles. From 1962 to 1970 they put out two albums per year. And they're considered classics. :celestial2:

But no one ever complains about it like they do Rihanna, hmmm... :nicole:

But no one ever complains about it like they do Rihanna, hmmm... :nicole:

Because the Beatles were writing all their own music for those 2 albums a year. No shade, just how people see it.

Because the Beatles were writing all their own music for those 2 albums a year. No shade, just how people see it.

True. Rihanna needs to write more, but I like her pacing. :nicole:

Was Yellow Submarine on one of those albums? I can't believe grown men wrote that. No shade to their overall lyrical abilities. :nicole:

I like quicker releases, simply because I'm fairly impatient and I always look forward to new material from my faves. I couldn't imagine having to wait 5 years for 'Bad' to come out after 'Thriller'. :laugh:

It doesn't always downgrade quality. Depends on the situation/who it is/etc.

And you just spilled the tea! :alexz:

This isn't a new trend to me. This has been done before.
I like quicker music too, for sake of having more. But of course, success comes in play for labels.

I dont think the albums are a problem. Everyone always says shes overexposed, but that never seems to happen with her I think because shes always just had music out!

I think her problem is the touring! She will never have an 100+ mill grossing tour if she has a new tour each year! Loud could have crossed that with the addition of Asia, Australia and other countries. The economy is at its worst and people dont have the money to pay for a Rihanna ticket every 12 months.

This is the Mariah method, babe.

1990
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/5/59/20101231055155!MariahCarey-MCcover.jpg

1991
http://www.htguide.com/forum/attachment.php4?attachmentid=15213

1992
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_g7T1VKynNk4/SWTKRNqaHmI/AAAAAAAAHbE/JBYqBzr9IYA/s1600/Mariah+Carey+-+MTV+Unplugged+-+Front.jpg

1993
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fepqainiFww/SxWn-6hkT-I/AAAAAAAARXg/QmE7TN2bO18/s1600/music+box.jpg

1994
http://images.uulyrics.com/cover/m/mariah-carey/album-merry-christmas.jpg

1995
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_79SLdAnt2es/TJIoxr53YBI/AAAAAAAAAFo/xSMjIbiXocE/s1600/MariahCarey_Daydream.jpg

Nothing in 1996...

1997
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000002BQK.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

1998
http://media.fanfire.com/images/product/large/MCA/MCACD007.jpg

1999
http://www.lyricsystem.com/img/photos/al1204789rainbow.jpg

Etc...

lol, it's not really "her" method, but none of the big pop stars pushed out albums like she did in the '90s.

True. Rihanna needs to write more, but I like her pacing. :nicole:

Was Yellow Submarine on one of those albums? I can't believe grown men wrote that. No shade to their overall lyrical abilities. :nicole:
They were stoned when they wrote it.

True. Rihanna needs to write more, but I like her pacing. :nicole:

Was Yellow Submarine on one of those albums? I can't believe grown men wrote that. No shade to their overall lyrical abilities. :nicole:

Grown men on drugs are another story altogether.

I don't think it downgrades quality considering how LOUD and BTW turned out to be 2 amazing albums, and from what i've heard from Take Care, it sounds amazing too.