Does Taking Your Time Really Make a Good Album?

There seems to be a lot of "I want Linkin Park to take their time and not rush the next album like they did with LIVING THINGS" around here which has inspired this post.

I'm not sure why people think that the longer a band/musician takes to put out an album the better it's going to be. Look at "Guns N' Roses" or rather Axl and friends with Chinese Democracy that took 14 odd years and is widely consider a woeful album.

In contrast, Saxon released their first album in May 1979, in May 1980 their second album Wheels of Steel was released and was an instant classic, followed by their third and arguably their best record Strong Arm of the Law in September 1980 - just 4 months later. And finally their fourth album and another one of their best Denim and Leather in October 1981. All of these albums, the latter 3 specifically remain brilliant albums 30+ years later.

So, do you really think taking several years to write an album makes it better than if you put one out within months of the last?

 

Yeah, I agree with you. If you ask me, time is not that of a big deal. There are tons of examples I could come up with to show that a short process can deliver legendary records. Of course, there are also tons of really good records that have been made after a long and difficult process.

But sometimes, honestly and authencity are better expressed through a short process. In thoses cases, musicians don't have the time to overthink everything and just record the first melodies that they come up with, when they think they're good. Rob said himself that during the MTM process, he wrote a drum part (I think it was for TLTGYA) a lot of times, before figuring out everybody prefered the first version of it.

Then, of course, there is a difference between authentic short process and forced short process (due to label deadline, or the need to have more material to tour with). The main thing for artists is to take the time they need. If they think a record is good enough after 1 year or so for it to be released, then let it be so. If they think it needs more time, then let them work more on it.

 

It depends really...I don't think they really need to take a shit load of time. It depends on if their inspired or not to crank out some good music. You could spend hours on something and in the end it'll come out to be shit and then work on something else on the spur of the moment in like half hour and it may come out as a masterpiece. I don't feel like the band has that level of inspiration in them to make something really awesome at this moment.

 

Everyone's different. You can't say it always matters or it doesn't matter. For some it does, for others it doesn't.

 

Yeah, its different with each band. I think Lp is just a band that would benefit from taking its time. On the other hand you have a band like Zeppelin (cause I'm on a beret right now) who just put out 2 albums every year and a half and it was fucking gold. And then you have axl rose who couldn't put out a decent album to save his life.

 

I want to wait more, not because I think the music will be better, but because I want hype to build up.

 

Taking your time to make a song can lead to an over produced piece of crap, or into a perfected master piece. Rushing a song can make it sound unauthentic, or as genuine as it can ever be.

It always depends on so many variables.

 

Well, I was specifically talking about Linkin Park. I think they should take their time.

 

And I think the chief variable of them all is inspiration. Feeling inspired? Write it and get out there! Crank out tunes while you still got it good. Not inspired? Take your time and discover stuff until you're inspired again.

And you and I are complete opposites. Hype almost always leads to disappointment. When something lands on my lap I am usually more satisfied with it.

 

Depends on an artist.

 

linkin park onlee took 2 yrs to write their best album METEORA & then took 4eva 2 make minuts 2 yawn