Why the years between music/art/photo projects?

June 6, 2004 1:25 PM

Why is it that freelance type creative people, like say musicians, artists, photographers, actors etc. tend to spend years between projects? Unless you're say a high-end music artist, it's economically infeasable. Signed bands usually have 2 or 3 years between albums. Yes, that's often to build up new material, but just as often that's not the case. What's the deal? Is there that much potential for burnout?
posted by abcde to Media & Arts (12 answers total)

Musicians are generally promoting the album, touring on the strength of the album, releasing a second single from the album, touring & promoting on the basis of that, suing their record company for not releasing royalties from the *first* single, etc. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't doing anything. I'd say the same applies for those other fields, too.
posted by bcwinters at 2:03 PM on June 6, 2004

But bands used to put out a couple of albums a year (see the Beatles' discography). I too am curious about this change.
posted by languagehat at 2:10 PM on June 6, 2004

I'm a little confused by the question. You are excluding "high end" people, so I assume you're asking why non-celebrities don't continually put out projects.

It's because they can't.

Recording music, developing prints, making indy movies, etc. costs a lot of money. It's hard to raise it.

And yes, it's economically infeasable, so either the artists have some independent income or, more often, they have a day job.

I direct plays in New York, but not a Broadway level. I can't support myself directing. So I teach computer classes. This "bread-and-butter job" sucks up a lot of my time, which is part of the reason why I don't constantly direct plays. I also don't constantly do it because each play costs me several thousand dollars to do. And it takes me a while to recover financially from the previous one.

Most creative work doesn't make a profit. Most doesn't even break even.

Some artists who have "made it," made enough money on one or two works to support themselves for life. In such cases, they are as prolific as they want to be (or can be). Some people enjoy cranking stuff out (and some do it very well). Some like to work on a single thing for years untill they perfect it.

Think Woody Allen vs. Stanley Kubrick.
posted by grumblebee at 2:34 PM on June 6, 2004

Response by poster: Yeah, but even when the tour has ended and the singles and promotion are all over. Legal battles is one good reason though
posted by abcde at 2:34 PM on June 6, 2004

Response by poster: grumblebee: But when you're a musician with a contract and a label paying for your records, you have nothing to do to get the money for the other expenses (management etc.), and for your own life, but to keep recording or touring (what, venture capital? ;))
posted by abcde at 2:37 PM on June 6, 2004

But if you care about your artform, you produce when you're ready to produce. Which, unfortunately, might not be when you need the money.

I came close to being able to make it as a commercial director. At least, I could see what I would have to do to start down that road. But to do so, I would have to make artistic compromises. I refused to do that. Which means that my artistic work will never pay the rent. Which is fine. I've decided to do another job so that I can keep my art "pure."

Boy, that sounds snobbish. But it is true to how I've decided to live my life. And I know I'm not the only creator who has made this decision.
posted by grumblebee at 2:41 PM on June 6, 2004

Well, for actors and directors, it seems pretty reasonable that there be some space between projects, because theatre and film productions involve a lot of time and energy to complete. There are extremes, like director Terrence Malick, who had a 20 year gap between films. What the hell was he doing all that time?

I'm with you in wondering about musicians though. I don't pretend to understand the process of creating music. I'm in awe of it and it's pretty much magic to me. It seems to me that the Album paradigm really limits what we hear of our favourite musicians and restricts and/or focuses. If musicians recorded and distributed everything they wrote, we might end up thinking less of them. Of course, it doesn't stop Bob Pollard of Guided by Voices, who is ultra-prolific.

Speaking as a visual artist (a lazy one, admittedly) the amount of sketches, unfinished work and scrapped work greatly, GREATLY outweighs the amount of work I'd consider truly finished. That, and muses can be notoriously stingy when pouring you a glass of inspiration. It's no exagerration that one could go years without a good idea.

And then, sometimes life just gets in the way.
posted by picea at 2:43 PM on June 6, 2004

Response by poster: Yeah, re: the LP format limiting output. Radiohead, now that their deal with Capitol has expired (though they'll probably re-sign, with a deal so good the company will be at their disposal), were thinking for a while of switching to more frequently released EPs, which would probably be nearly as popular despite not being full albums due to their stature as a band, but most bands couldn't afford that privelege.
posted by abcde at 3:03 PM on June 6, 2004

But bands used to put out a couple of albums a year (see the Beatles' discography).

Yes, and that was often the norm at least well into the '80s. In the '70s, for example, David Bowie put out something like 13 studio albums in 10 years, also while touring heavily (and admittedly, doing tremendous amounts of coke). I remember when I first became a record-buying fanatical youngster in the early '80s, most of my favorite bands (The Jam, R.E.M., U2, etc.) put out roughly an album a year.

I'm assuming that part of it is that touring/promotional obligations have gotten significantly more onerous, but I'm also curious as to whether other factors are at work. But as picea mentions, there are plenty of bands/musicians who are quite prolific. Maybe they're the ones who've somehow managed to get the record companies out of their way...?
posted by scody at 3:11 PM on June 6, 2004

Besides logistic reasons, there also the fact that artists tend to create their art from life experience. Recording, touring, etc aren't 'real life' experiences - musicians often come off tours completely off their heads. They have to decompress before they can pick up their lives. I heard a DJ interview a musician once, prodding him why he hadn't put out a record in three years. The musician's - annoyed - answer was 'I have a life.'
posted by prolific at 3:41 PM on June 6, 2004

Also a factor for musicians is the fact that CDs hold more music than a record. It wasn't out of the ordinary to release an album with eight songs in 1978, just as it's not uncommon to release an album with 16 songs today.
posted by hootch at 7:51 AM on June 7, 2004

From a business standpoint, I imagine oversaturating the marketplace might detract in the long-term. I know that when I decide to bone up on an artist I'm not particularly familiar with, I get pretty intimidated if there are 12 albums in their catalogue to wade through. Of course, for every artist with 10 albums in the past decade, however, there's always a "greatest hits" album to make it easier to pull in some cash from those folks who might not salivate for each year's new release.
posted by Hankins at 1:10 PM on June 7, 2004