Go to the NEW FORUM
Why were bands so much more prolific in this period? I mean,take a group like the Temptations. They put their debut out in 1964,and by the end of the decade had 11 albums to their name. Or even the Beatles,whose albums would have required a lot more production hours than soul artists,still averaged almost 2 albums a year. But even in the late 70s,bands like the Jam and the Ramones were still prolific but eventually there came a point where it was extremely rare for an artist to bring out an album a year. I'm not really sure it's down to albums being more complex now,would it really take longer to record new albums than Sgt. Peppers or Pet Sounds? I don't think new artists are workaholics like they used to be in the 60s.
I'm with you guys. I'm sick of listening to people in my school drool on Bieber and Gaga's feet.
I've thought about this question a lot. The best answer I can come up with is that in the wake of declining CD sales, artists need to make the majority of their revenue from ticket and merchandise sales. Virtually no acclaimed artists can do what the Beatles did in the 60s, when they stopped touring entirely and focused on releasing lots of studio material because anything they put out would sell millions of copies.
As for modern prolific artists, Bradford Cox has put out tons of music under Deerhunter and Atlas Sound over the last five years. Also, The Fall and Sonic Youth have both been releasing consistently good albums since the 80s, showing longevity that most 60s/70s artists failed to match.