In many ways, I see the infrequency of recordings by rock groups as an
anomaly of popular music. I tend to think that once these people
become ultra-rich, they cease to be practicing musicians. Rather, many
albums sound to me like they were made at least partly because two or
three (or sometimes more) years had passed, and it was contractually
mandated. "Oh, it's time write some more 'Sting songs'." I do think
that expectations run very high, but this is at least in part because
of the infrequency of the recorded output.
One way to have a tremendous impact is to increase the frequency of
this output. I can think of at least two bands which did this: The
Beatles and The Police. I'm not comparing them musically, or in terms
of artistic success; but both fired off a succession of albums with
the frequency of one per year (or more, in the case of The Beatles).
The Police released full length original albums in 1978, 79, 80, 81,
and 83.
Whether it is the lengthy cycle between albums, and/or the heavy
expectations, The Police are clearly in an unusual spot after a 25-
year layoff. However, I would think that three experienced
professional musicians, touring the world for a year and a half, would
have the wherewithal to produce at least some new material. In fact, I
would expect it to happen almost organically, arising out of
rehearsals, sound checks, and performances. That it apparently has not
says something about the tour, I think. Are things managed so
carefully, or is there a significant amount of calculation involved,
either in terms of Sting being careful (for whatever reasons), or the
decision not to "mess with the legacy"?
I can't imagine if, say, John Coltrane and Miles Davis, if they were
still alive, and say Herbie Hancock, got together they wouldn't just
grab a drummer, make some new music and release it.
Chris
