Crimson Idol
Caveman
Another topic born from chat (IRC and real life) recently - Ideally this should all be done on a theoretical/rhetorical perspective, but of course it came from discussing bands so there will naturally be some fairly big similarities involved (Which I'd like to steer away from).
What to you, makes a band "good"?
I may have to name drop to get the context at times, but I'll try avoid doing it more than necessary. Anyhow... onto the discussion background!
STILL Active bands with long career's tend to have a pretty good standing just for that merit, but they are extremely varied. In some cases you have bands who released fantastic material once upon a time, with albums that were extremely solid with no real low points, and then have been exceedingly bad since with the occasional good song interspersed. Others, you have bands who have never really had any 'masterpiece' albums of consistent quality throughout, but have a decent selection of songs across their entire catalogue but spread amongst many many albums. You also get the reverse, bands who have been consistently poor for a long period of time and then had a sudden good album surge... and finally, the ones who release very few albums, perhaps every 7 years or something, but they are brilliant.
So.. of course it's hard to say without individual songs etc but which, theoretically, would you say is the 'better' band.
Would the Good->Bad band be better off having quit while they were ahead, or would they be considered to be riding on the accomplishments like a one hit wonder. (Good example of "riding" is GnR, they had 3 fantastic albums back at the late 80's/early 90's, then did absolutely nothing for 15 years!).
Is a band who has released 5 great albums (and nothing else) over 30 years better, or worse, than a band who has released 15 albums which are all average on their own, but have the same number of good songs spread across (making for one killer compilation CD) their career, but also of course the same number of bad ones. (The first band has Quality albums, and consistent, but very little quantity. The second has consistency and quantity but not great quality etc). There is always the argument that even a 'bad' track someone somewhere will like, and a band with low Quantity that can't happen...
Is it better to have gone from being a pretty mediocre band who no one ever paid attention to for the first 20 years and then came up with a series of killer albums? If a band releases good material first then falls down does that now add a black mark which will lower their status for releasing poor albums or will it gain them respect over the "Quit while you're ahead" types because they are still trying.
My wording isn't very good but I think I've got the point across (hope!) ... I also pondered including diversity, but I think these 3 are of more importance when people rate a band.
So, thoughts?
What to you, makes a band "good"?
I may have to name drop to get the context at times, but I'll try avoid doing it more than necessary. Anyhow... onto the discussion background!
STILL Active bands with long career's tend to have a pretty good standing just for that merit, but they are extremely varied. In some cases you have bands who released fantastic material once upon a time, with albums that were extremely solid with no real low points, and then have been exceedingly bad since with the occasional good song interspersed. Others, you have bands who have never really had any 'masterpiece' albums of consistent quality throughout, but have a decent selection of songs across their entire catalogue but spread amongst many many albums. You also get the reverse, bands who have been consistently poor for a long period of time and then had a sudden good album surge... and finally, the ones who release very few albums, perhaps every 7 years or something, but they are brilliant.
So.. of course it's hard to say without individual songs etc but which, theoretically, would you say is the 'better' band.
Would the Good->Bad band be better off having quit while they were ahead, or would they be considered to be riding on the accomplishments like a one hit wonder. (Good example of "riding" is GnR, they had 3 fantastic albums back at the late 80's/early 90's, then did absolutely nothing for 15 years!).
Is a band who has released 5 great albums (and nothing else) over 30 years better, or worse, than a band who has released 15 albums which are all average on their own, but have the same number of good songs spread across (making for one killer compilation CD) their career, but also of course the same number of bad ones. (The first band has Quality albums, and consistent, but very little quantity. The second has consistency and quantity but not great quality etc). There is always the argument that even a 'bad' track someone somewhere will like, and a band with low Quantity that can't happen...
Is it better to have gone from being a pretty mediocre band who no one ever paid attention to for the first 20 years and then came up with a series of killer albums? If a band releases good material first then falls down does that now add a black mark which will lower their status for releasing poor albums or will it gain them respect over the "Quit while you're ahead" types because they are still trying.
My wording isn't very good but I think I've got the point across (hope!) ... I also pondered including diversity, but I think these 3 are of more importance when people rate a band.
So, thoughts?
They aren't quite as highly regarded as some particular bands that don't tick so many boxes though.
