Chris wrote:
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...
I'm sure that's a part of it, but not always the sole reason.
One way to have a tremendous impact is to increase the frequency of this output.
A tremendous impact in/on what? Sales? Music history?
I can think of at least two bands which did this: The Beatles and The Police...both fired off a succession of albums with the frequency of one per year.
True. And both of those bands had an impact on the development of rock music due to their songs and their performing abilities. I'm sure there just as many (if not more) bands that have released albums yearly (or close to it) that haven't had a tremendous impact during their careers. I would argue two things. The first is that the yearly or near-yearly release schedule is often a product of early success. I can add Van Halen and Duran Duran to the list of bands that were on this kind of schedule during the first 5 or so years of their major label lives. So were U2, to a slightly lesser degree. Once they achieved a comfortable level of fame, they were able to take their time with further releases. Sting did this too. As did the Beatles in their solo years. The second is that some artists are simply more prolific than others. Elton John and Madonna are fairly consistent with their releases and have a large catalog because of it. Springsteen and Peter Gabriel are less so. But all four have played important roles in the development of the genre. I could even argue a third thing: quantity doesn't necessarily equal quality. But since the Police have already proved that, I don't have to. - Mitch