Bear with me here, because I'm kind of... saying two opposite things at the same time.
It seems to me that these days bands aren't allowed enough time to mature before they really get a shot at the big time. These days, bands will routinely take three or four years between albums without it even counting as a hiatus. If you look at the 1960s, bands were releasing two or even three albums a year in that time. A band could have an eight-album career in the time it took, say, Linkin Park to write and release their third album.
Whilst I am in mourning for the era when bands released a record every six months plus extraneous singles, that's not what this thread is about. Is it me, or are bands not allowed as much time (and by time, I mean in music released, not in literal months and years) to mature and stand on their own two feet?
Bands these days, if their first album flops, they tend to get dropped. End of. Not that I miss them at all, but bands like The Bravery and The Others had flop debut albums and subsequently were gone. On the other hand, if you look at a band like Pink Floyd, their first album was successful, but then they pretty much were hit and miss commercially until Dark Side Of The Moon; that's a whole six albums between their debut and the album when they finally started making money outside of England.
Also, a lot of groups or artists with abbreviated catalogues, either by death or being dropped, seem to be evolving into something totally different if you listen to their demos from after that. Take Jeff Buckley's demos from the later nineties before he died, which are at times quite unlike Grace.
Should bands be allowed more time to mature? I don't mean The Bravery and The Others specifically because they're both fucking terrible, but I think some other less successful groups deserve at least one more album to stand on their own two feet before they get dropped.