Fun Stuff > BAND

Consistent catalogues

<< < (5/14) > >>

Damnable Fiend:
how long do you think a band's discography should be before they can be considered for this?

Nodaisho:
Agalloch, with no bad albums, at one point I would have said The Grey is bad, but it was more of an acquired taste EP.

Sculptured, with no bad albums out of a whopping three. You could argue that the lyrics on The Spear of the Lily... are cheesy, but not offensively so, and the music is good on all three albums. Assuming you like avant-garde atonal jazz-influenced metal.

Clutch might make the list if we are ignoring production issues, Strange Cousins From the West has not nearly enough bass, but would sound great if they were playing live. They've had something like eight albums, I'm probably wrong on that.

Out of those three, one thing is consistent, and that is that the music isn't. The music is always good, but they change up the style. Don't know if that helps or hurts consistency of quality.

Also, Down with three albums, there probably should be some sort of lower limit on how many albums a band has to have before they count as consistent.

Maybe CoC and Crowbar, but I don't know much about their earlier stuff, and a couple of Crowbar's albums are kind of boring.

Ptommydski:

--- Quote from: Inlander on 12 Apr 2010, 23:08 ---Does that mean that you like Sings Greatest Palace Music now?

--- End quote ---

I do but I'm not sure if it counts.

Thrillho:

--- Quote from: Retrospectre on 12 Apr 2010, 17:37 ---
--- Quote from: DynamiteKid on 12 Apr 2010, 16:28 ---Most of you seem to be getting it, Neil Young is a bad example - he has eight great records, sure. He also has dozens of terrible ones.
--- End quote ---

Yet you included the Stones who have alarmingly similar statistics?

--- End quote ---

That was probably a bit misleading of me to put it in the main post, it was simply meant as a comparison to the Beatles.

The question now sort of raised by what Tommy was saying is whether it's about the quantity of great records you've produced or the percentage; I was stating it was more about the percentage myself, but now that I think about it, if you compare Pixies to Dylan who I reckon has at least 12 good to great albums or Nick Cave who has 13 or so, that could be considered a greater achievement. What do you all think?

David_Dovey:
Well no, simply because it doesn't exactly equal "consistency" per se, plus there's not really a great deal of merit to a(nother) thread where we just talk about people that have released some good albums but also some that suck.

In my opinion I would say that Boris have never had a particularly bad release, including splits, collabs and live albums etc. which is pretty amazing considering just how insanely prolific they are and the sheer range and variety of sounds that they cover.

That being said there are several releases of theirs that I haven't heard (have I mentioned that they are ridiculously prolific?) so it's entirely possible some of the Merzbow collabs, for example, aren't too hot.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page