<<My question is were these books on a bi-monthly schedule because of talent issues (i.e. the writer and artist couldn't do a monthly book)? Or was there another reason unrelated to talent (distribution, sales, etc.)?>>

Since you addressed this to John or anyone:  My understanding is most bi-monthly books in the 1970s were that way because of sales. Even Detective Comics was bi-monthly (or maybe eight times a year) in the 1970s for this reason. Books even started bi-monthly and "earned" the right to come out more often, although this changed later in the decade.

On a related note: Does this happen anymore? Most books today start monthly and live or die based on that schedule -- unless a late issue puts a book three, four, or however many months behind. Have any modern books been pushed back to a less frequent publishing schedule due to sales?

QUOTE: My question is were these books on a bi-monthly schedule because of talent issues (i.e. the writer and artist couldn't do a monthly book)? Or was there another reason unrelated to talent (distribution, sales, etc.)?

95% of the time was sales.  Every once in awhile you'd get one to keep the talent from being overworked.  At least that's what they said, anyway. 

QUOTE: Anyway, it seems to be that if you can only do six books a year, it's better to promise only six books a year, rather than promising 12 and only delivering six.

Yep.

Some reviewer was complaining about the clutter of background detail and over-coloring on a cover of Slott's THING series. Rather than being prominent, Grimm seems swallowed in detail. Too much.

I was reading an interview with Roger Stern from FFPlaza.com. I went back to get this quote because of how much people revile Sal Buscema for his lack of backgrounds while telling his story, as if he was too untalented or too much a hack to bother putting them in:

"SK: Are there any (artists) that stand out for whatever reason? You just really admire their work or they were a blast to work with?

RS: I've got a huge list obviously. And John Buscema is far and away the best illustrator, but Sal [Buscmea, John's brother], I think, is a better cartoonist. He's actually a better storyteller. Not that there's anything wrong with John's storytelling, but Sal's stories are far better whereas John's illustration is better. But they're both great.

I got to work with [Steve] Ditko on a few projects. That was great. Not only some of the stuff he came up with, but when he'd draw the stories I'd come up with. There's that Avengers Annual. I came up with this story with Arnim Zola. You know there's maybe only half a dozen guys in the business who can draw Arnim Zola and not have him seem silly. "He's actually not working for Marvel right now. Now John's busy and this guy I don't think... and, well, (Michael) Golden: we'd like for it come out this year (noting Golden was a "late" artist, but his work always came out gorgeous)." I was talking to Tom DeFalco and he says, "You know... what about Ditko? Ditko would be great! And it'd be real sharp!" Ditko drew it and John [Byrne] had some time open up in his schedule, so he inked it.

SK: Yeah, I remember that one.

(Author's Note: It was Avengers Annual #13.)

RS: It was just a joy; it was wonderful. It had some great stuff. "