Is there a ‘right’ time to release an album?
With increased talk of smaller bands’ albums not “being big enough” to merit a review, we look into what could be a divisive subject—should new bands be releasing albums so soon?
Photo: Clay Banks
First off, if you’re a band of experienced musicians—or even just, I don’t know, talented—and you feel as if you have a complete body of work ready to be released, then you should do what’s right for you. Now I know that might hazard a sigh from some but it really is that simple. There shouldn’t be a big conundrum around whether or not you as a collective should be releasing a full-length album. If it’s right for you, that’s just it. No one can argue with that.
Photo: Florencia Viadana
I don’t believe that bands should just pop out of nowhere and go “oh, hey everyone, here’s an album.” That’s a bit different. Actively having a presence online and creating a ‘buzz’ around your band is incredibly helpful in the long run. Honestly, if you’re just releasing music for fun and don’t care about making an impact, who cares? Release to your heart’s content. Do whatever you want. Never tell anyone about it. Be the Banksy of music: be true to yourself.
If you want to do it properly, ideally you’d bring out a single first and then lead up to an EP somewhere in the space of the next two years. But, as I already mentioned, you should always go at your own pace. Ask yourself: am I ready?
If you’re not so sure, try playing around with your style a little before setting anything in stone. Remember, you can always reach out to somebody, whether that may be a writer, PR, friend, or sixth-removed cousin, it’s always good to hear another opinion on a project (even while still in the early days of production).
Photo: George Lemon
While I’ve heard my fair share of haphazardly produced albums from artists who haven’t yet surpassed their friends and families listening to them, I’ve seen some incredible offerings too. DIY albums can be magnificent while some have clearly been heavily encouraged by relatives, which inherently gives the band a little too much ego for their own good, and leads them down a path to a fatefully rushed debut album, then radio silence. If your dad who loves Madness says you’re good, you should probably heed a second opinion—he’ll say anything is good, he’s your dad.
I think, and I’m sure a lot of artists would agree, that you should always put out a single first. Give the people a taster, see if it’s for them and if you should experiment with your sound before bringing out more material. Naturally, so many bands follow the linear route of releasing singles, an EP or two, then their debut album after they’ve mapped out what they want to achieve. This has been foolproof since The Beatles were starting out, and I think it’ll be the way to go for quite some time.
Of course, once you’ve mastered your album, you would naturally look at sending it to music publications in order to build up some momentum. Earlier this week I happened to come across a podcast where they discussed their thoughts on smaller bands releasing an album. To sum it up, they’d only consider reviewing your release if you’re “big enough.” If you’re a music site ‘championing’ new music, I don’t think rating Liam Gallagher’s latest album five stars is helping any small artists. Everybody should have a fair chance at getting a review no matter how big a following they have, and they definitely should never have to pay to even be in with a chance of getting heard.
At the end of the day, you don’t need to be Paul McCartney to release an album; just be certain it’s what you want to do. Not sure? Create demos, give them a whirl on the circuit, see how they’re received and, if you think that’s the right direction, I simply say: go for it.
