Quote:
Originally Posted by WaspStar
Regardless of one's feelings on a band, I don't think the quantity of their output should be a factor. Some of the best bands hvae only released a handful of albums. If the VU had broken up after their first album, they'd still be considered one of the best bands of the 60's, and rightfully so.
As an example, in the end, the only Stones albums that I care about are Sticky Fingers and Let It Bleed. My thoughts on the band wouldn't really be changed if those were the only albums they made.
|
I disagree.
Would you have the same feelings if it were Led Zeppelin and not Joy Division that released just two albums and was being questioned here?
If a band makes eight, ten or one hundred very good albums it's more impressive then one that releases two or three. I agree you should not exclude a band based on quantity or lack there of and that releasing 15 albums doesn't mean any of them are any good. But longevity has to be a factor, it's a fact of life so I don't see how it can't be a factor.