Interesting Statistic?

Maybe that just shows the breaking point for bands. From these stats, it seems like the band either makes it or doesnt... those first few albums are tough times for a new band, in other words. Take a look at Rush... if 2112 hadn't sold as well as it did, the band would have folded... they really struggled on the Caress of Steel tour. Thats just one theory. A band like ELP would totally contradict this though... as after four albums the band, for all intensive purposes, died... at least in the general public's eye.

Interesting stuff maani!

Yes, the first albums are tough, getting the first punch in, bettering it and proving you're consistent within the space of these first three albums, that's murder, no wonder the ranks get decimated at that point, especially after the first album ... but I'm not surprised that there are so many bands with 6+ albums. After all, if you've managed to record five albums that means you've got at least some sort of a following, support etc. You're actually getting something out of it, even if it's only the satisfaction with your own work and the satisfaction given by a few people who come to congratulate you after a concert or give positive feedback about the album. So if it pays off after five albums, why stop?

On the other hand, what do you mean by "albums", Maani? Only full length studio albums, or do you include live albums, EPs, MCDs, singles, B-side- and unreleased collections etc.? Because if one gets specific about these things, it's harder to generalise... or maybe not...

Definitely a very interesting thread, Maani.  

All:

I did use all albums, not just studio ones.  It would take me weeks - possibly months - to figure the numbers using just studio albums.  Still, it might be a worthwhile endeavor sometime in the future.

I will try to break it down both by "Italian only" for James, and by era (or at least decade) for danbo.  That shouldn't take too long.

One thing I forgot to note.  Simply because a band has only released one album does not mean it will not release another; i.e., not all of the "one album" bands simply released one album and "died."  However, based on a very loose guesstimate, I would say that true "one-album wonders" probably make up 60% to 75% of those who have only released one album; i.e., only about 25% to 35% are stil active bands who may yet produce another album.  Again, that is a guesstimate, and may have little to do with reality.

Thanks for all your comments.

Peace.

I get the impression that Italian prog was very much a cottage industry in the early to mid 70s with a lot of projects released on small, independent labels. Some appear to have picked up major label distribution but it seems a lot of bands got themselves into a studio recorded their stuff, pressed up a few thousand copies and then promptly disappeared. Some, I imagine, are lost gems but the bulk are, like all vanity projects, only for the truly committed.

The statistics in general are very interesting - I'd subscribe to the view (certainly in the early to mid 70s) of major labels attempting to cash in on 'the progressive sound' this is reflected in major labels pursuit of 'boutique' labels for prog - Harvest being the most obvious case at EMI but also Vertigo at Phonogram, and I'm sure CBS also had similar niche labels.

These gave the label a brand to release but one which frequently had a scattergun approach - sign up a lot of bands to short deals and see what happens.

This is a frequent response by major labels to a 'scene'. It happened with psychedelia, punk, new romanticism, I even remember companies were flying in planeloads of A&R people to Dublin in the mid-80s to sign up the 'next U2'. Every chancer and half-assed, big-haired alt-rocker in city's crumbling rehearsal rooms seemed to get offered a major label deal from Cry Before Dawn to In Tua Nua to Blue in Heaven to Something Happens. None of them ever made it and the bands were dropped as soon as the A&R guys found  a new city to plunder (I think that would 'Madchester' around 1988/89).

What you're left with, however, is an often fascinating archive of a 'movement', a snapshot of a city's or cities' musical zeitgeist at a particular point in time, via a handful of recordings (usually an ambitious debut album and an attempted career-saver sophomore attempt from each band) that occasionally contain great music that got lost in the mix but by and large feature a lot of soundalikes and wannabees who simply aped their local heroes badly.

I would imagine that prog is no different - we are all seekers of the great 'lost' bands but by and large the more obscure a band is and the more limited their output the worse they are. There are glorious exceptions but most were camp followers rather than leaders of men.

Arcer:

You said: "What you're left with...is an often fascinating archive of a 'movement', a snapshot of a city's or cities' musical zeitgeist at a particular point in time, via a handful of recordings (usually an ambitious debut album and an attempted career-saver sophomore attempt from each band) that occasionally contain great music that got lost in the mix but by and large feature a lot of soundalikes and wannabees who simply aped their local heroes badly."

Although you may overestimating how many of these bands are "soundalikes and wannabees," this is nevertheless an excellent observation! 

JrKASperov:

My guess is that those side projects are actually fairly rare, so I don't think they skew the numbers in any significant way.

Peace.

I'm surprised that only twenty percent of bands stop after one album. In popular music, the figure is likely the opposite, with eighty percent being forgotten once MTV declares the latest fad.