Originally Posted by Cheap Poison
Maybe the more important question is to ask if maybe it isn't more natural to release just tracks whenever and not use the set value of an album.
I don't know but there is always a lot of talk about rethinking the business model for music so.
It depends what you're trying to achieve. The business model for big bands now is touring, which means there are 5 year gaps between albums. When you think about it, that is flipping absurd in terms of artistic legacy. The Beatles' entire career spanned a couple of Tool albums.
Nowadays most non-headline bands should keep more active musically, because it just isn't going to last forever, you can't build that kind of massive status, and even if you do the dinosaurs of rock are blocking your path to ever truly making it to headliner status. Think of it this way, if Led Zeppelin were still regularly playing, they'd probably go above everyone else on the card, in the same way Black Sabbath were automatic headliners when the reunion was initially announced. Bands like Slayer sticking around helps nobody in terms of building up new acts.
I think they should release EPs more regularly. A lot of them seem to have given up on fans actually bothering to buy their albums. Maybe a more realistically priced product, or indeed more regular releases, would mean people felt a little more excited about following their favourite bands, rather than the big build-up to a release every 3 years and then a collapse in general interest while the band tours. Write on the road, get an EP out.
Korn are pretty good at doing two albums just about back to back, (Korn/Life Is Peachy, Follow The Leader/Issues, Untouchables/TALITM, whatever the ones after that are....) then taking 2-3 years before the next one. I like that approach.