Hard times + music = crap bands?

Is there a link between economic times and the quality of the bands and the music that comes out? I can't be scientific about it, but I think the quality of bands is proportional to economic prosperity.

I was talking to a colleague at work who was asking if I'd heard any interesting new bands recently, and to be honest I've been that busy with work and trying to move house that I've let my eye slip off the ball.

"I've not either," was the response, "in fact, I've been a bit more interested in Curtis Mayfield and Marvin Gaye." Given that this person is fairly on the pulse when it comes to music, I was slightly taken aback.

But then I thought back to previous downturns and downright recessions and realised that it could be that there is nothing good because times are hard.

This might be counterintuitive, given that artists are tortured souls who often respond to dark times.

But look at the evidence. (And please remember I'm an indie fan)

Back in 1992, when the UK last hit recession, the best bands of the time were the T-shirt bands that were just escaped the Shoegaze era. We're talking the likes of Kingmaker, Ride, The Shamen and Carter the Unstoppable Sex Machine. While all three made what I considered to be good music at the time, there are few gems in their respective backcatalogues when considered from today's perspective.

Spool forward to 2001. Probably the most prominent band of the time was Travis with their ever-present album The Man Who.

Not that I'm saying all bands during these times will be poor. Far from it. I remember the reinvention of U2 throughout late '91 and '92, and 2001 was the year that helped break The Strokes.

It's just that contrast these sparse periods with economic high times in the mid-nineties (Britpop) and the 2003-2007 (too many bands to mention).

It may be that artistic souls might need torment to feed their angst, but a lack of food might stop the creative spark altogether.