Quote:
Originally Posted by JayJamJah
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.
|
Yes, I would have the same feelings regardless of the band in question (I personally don't like Joy Division, but to deny their importance/value simply because of the number of albums they released is ridiculous).
How many bands have made "eight, ten, or one hundred" very good albums? There are five or six Springsteen records that I really love, but I would place them second to the two Velvet Underground records that I really love. The records aren't "equal" in quality, even if they're all good.
Here's another example. It's cliched to say so, but I still honestly believe that Never Mind The Bollocks is the ultimate album and bests all of the albums by other punk bands. The Clash made two (or three) great records, Buzzcoc
ks released some amazing singles, the Dead Kennedys made some great albums...but for me, they all pale compared to the lone Sex Pistols album. I think that's the mentatlity a lot of Joy Division fans adopt.
Longevity has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the overall quality of a given body of work. Would you rather have 25 good songs or 5 truly great songs? Yes, if the songs are of equal quality, than I suppose quantity does matter. But that's not the way music is.