Which band/artist has the most consistent discography?

Rds1989

I would have to say it was either Elliott Smith or Pavement but what do you think

jefreywithonef

Pixies released four amazing LPs and one quite wonderful EP so I'd probably go with them, but the likes of Husker Du (with the exception of their first two releases and Candy Apple Grey, which isn't bad but isn't nearly as great as the four albums that preceded it and W:S&S that followed it), Radiohead and Nick Cave (in his various guises) run them close.

MikeHoncho

Radiohead. No one else comes close.

ValJester

The Smiths.Not a weak track on 4 albums. I even like Golden Lights.

ColmDawson

ValJester wrote: »

Golden Lights

Wolf Club

Yo La Tengo have been consistently good for almost 25 years. Radiohead and Pavement have more classic albums IMO but neither have released as many good albums (not yet, anyway). Beck is pretty consistent as well, as is Caribou.

MrStuffins

Radiohead.

Also, for me, i think The Cribs (i'm not sure how many fans there are here).

But Each of their albums have been really great and each album shows a lot of maturity. Comparing their debut to their latest album, they are ALMOST like 2 different bands.

Rollo Tamasi

Have Pearl Jam released a bad album in 20 years?

JerryHandbag

Everything ever released by Iron & Wine is 100% quality imo

AnonymousPrime

MikeHoncho wrote: »

Radiohead. No one else comes close.

I am by no means a radiohead fan (i like some of it) and yet I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Each album has an urgency to it aswell as an underlying need to distance itself from previous releases.

Once again i am not the biggest of fans but I have a massive respect for radiohead

I would throw Elbow into the mix. Not they are consistently good, but each release is better than the last, building to the crescendo that is seldom seen kid

Bog

My Bloody Valentine and Neutral Milk Hotel.

Only two albums each but their succint discographies are masterpieces.

From a longer term point of view, Belle & Sebastian would be up there but Fold Your Hand Child might push it a little.

smackbunnybaby

The answer to this question is......

Low!

Stompbox

IIRC, Metacritic rank Spoon as the most consistent artist in terms of critical reviews. Personally, I feel Damon Albarn has maintained a consistently solid body of work. Generally, I think consistency wanes a bit as artists get older but somehow he's retained his vitality.

Battleflag

+ 1 for Radiohead, each album is unique and brilliant - always find myself going back listening to their discography

iWeeze

Camera Obscura, awesome body of work right there.

MrStuffins

iWeeze wrote: »

Camera Obscura, awesome body of work right there.

Great shout!

sweetie

Sweet wrote: »

IIRC, Metacritic rank Spoon as the most consistent artist in terms of critical reviews. Personally, I feel Damon Albarn has maintained a consistently solid body of work. Generally, I think consistency wanes a bit as artists get older but somehow he's retained his vitality.

good call on Spoon, gonna see them in a couple weeks too.

I would have to go with Wilco- ok the being there/summerteeth/YHF albums are stronger than the rest but on a whole they have been consistently very good.

Bubs101

Weezer

MrStuffins

Bubs101 wrote: »

Weezer

I disagree

FortuneChip

I'd reckon Sigur Ros.
I like everything by Beirut thus far as well

AnonoBoy

MrStuffins wrote: »

I disagree

As does everyone with ears.

pappyodaniel

+1 for Radiohead. I'd also go with Belle and Sebastian and I'd go with Gruff Rhys mainly for his work with Super Furry Animals but also his solo stuff and other side projects Neon Neon and collaborations with Gorrillaz and Sparklehorse & Dangermouse.

I love how SFA recorded Paul McCartney to chew celery and carrots to use as a beat to the song Receptacle for the Respectable. I'd compare that to South Park using George Clooney as Sparky the Dog, hillarious.

Bubs101

Good to see the Boards' sense of humour is still here

JnarF

For me I'd have to say anything by And You Will Know Us By The Trail of Dead, British Sea Power and Pete Yorn.

donfers

Is anybody going to say the blue nile?

Wolf Club

FortuneChip wrote: »

I'd reckon Sigur Ros.

Up until their most recent album I'd agree, that was a bit of a let down.

S.M.B.

Wouldn't have much time for Von too. Everything between that and their latest has been great though.

KeepOnRunning

The Beatles, Blur. That's about it to my music interests. In my opinion, bands are only good or big for two albums, after that it's failure to live up to past glories. The ones that can move past this are true music legends.

MrStuffins

KeepOnRunning wrote: »

The Beatles, Blur. That's about it to my music interests. In my opinion, bands are only good or big for two albums, after that it's failure to live up to past glories. The ones that can move past this are true music legends.

The Bends.............

OK Computer.........

Kid A and everything afterwards....... Radiohead are the band who fit into your scenario!

Generation Terrorist

The Clash

deisedude

Radiohead and The National for me

rcaz

Another Radiohead shout here. There isn't an album I don't like, and I absolutely love all but one. I used to be of the 'Pablo Honey is ****' persuasion, but then I grew up a bit and listened to it again, and while totally different, and maybe less complicated/considered, it's still a great rock album.

I'd love to say The Flaming Lips satisfy this, but their first 3 albums are kinda mediocre at best. Once I get past that, every one of their albums till the present day is great, albums that I'd be proud to call my own (I always think the ultimate compliment you can pay something is "I wish I could've made that..."). But Maybe Hear It Is, Oh My Gawd!!!... and Telepathic Surgery disqualify them?

lordgoat

Bubs101 wrote: »

Weezer

Bubs101 wrote: »

Good to see the Boards' sense of humour is still here

Alive and kicking!

mawk

Neill young is still pushing good work through after all the years. Or therapy?(?)

Manchegan

PJ Harvey - never less than totally committed.

whatawaster

Eh . . . The Beatles

Please Please Me
With the Beatles
A Hard Day's Night
Beatles for Sale
Help!
Rubber Soul
Revolver
Sgt. Pepper's Lonley Heart's Club Band
Magical Mystery Tour
The Beatles
Let it Be
Abbey Road

Started off as a brilliant pop band. Evolved into the most interesting, innovative and original band we're ever likely to see. They were the Radiohead of their age times a million.

And it's really not close. Bowie, Stones and Dylan were all great, but all went into serious decline imo

Wolf Club

whatawaster wrote: »

Eh . . . The Beatles

Please Please Me
With the Beatles
A Hard Day's Night
Beatles for Sale
Help!
Rubber Soul
Revolver
Sgt. Pepper's Lonley Heart's Club Band
Magical Mystery Tour
The Beatles
Let it Be
Abbey Road

Started off as a brilliant pop band. Evolved into the most interesting, innovative and original band we're ever likely to see. They were the Radiohead of their age times a million.

And it's really not close. Bowie, Stones and Dylan were all great, but all went into serious decline imo

I'm as big a Beatlemaniac as the next man so i can see where you're coming from, but can you honestly say you'd listen to both discs of the White Album all the way through? Around 60% is excellent but the rest borders between average and absolute ****e! In fact, pretty much all of their albums have a few duds.

rcaz

whatawaster wrote: »

Dylan ... went into serious decline imo

Wouldn't agree with you there... But the amazing thing about Dylan is his sheer volume of work. Have you kept up with The Bootleg Series? Volume 8: Tell Tale Signs, is 5 LPs of unreleased stuff, and it's more music than a lot of bands ever make in their whole career, and all of top-notch quality.

MrStuffins

Wolf Club wrote: »

I'm as big a Beatlemaniac as the next man so i can see where you're coming from, but can you honestly say you'd listen to both discs of the White Album all the way through? Around 60% is excellent but the rest borders between average and absolute ****e! In fact, pretty much all of their albums have a few duds.

I agree here, a lot of The White Album is frankly muck!

Also, the fact that some of their early work featured so much old work. Sure Please Please Me consists of almost 50% covers.

whatawaster

MrStuffins wrote: »

I agree here, a lot of The White Album is frankly muck!

Also, the fact that some of their early work featured so much old work. Sure Please Please Me consists of almost 50% covers.

I completely disagree about the White Album. There are a couple of poor tracks on it – but I prefer to look at it this way: It probably has more great songs than any other album I’ve ever heard. Back in the USSR, Blackbird, Happiness is a Warm Gun, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Helter Skelter, Dear Prudence . . . it’s got so much variety

Regarding their early work – you do realize that they were working in a completely different time, when bands didn’t really write their own songs. Buddy Holly was one of the first, and the Beatles weren’t far behind.
The fact that their early albums have covers is not a valid point of criticism imo. For one thing, they were writing more songs than any other band at the time. As well as that the quality of their covers was outstanding – Twist and Shout, Roll over Beethoven, I wanna be your man, Money – are all outstanding performances, regardless of who wrote them

Twin-go

Zwan FTW:D

MrStuffins

whatawaster wrote: »

I completely disagree about the White Album. There are a couple of poor tracks on it – but I prefer to look at it this way: It probably has more great songs than any other album I’ve ever heard. Back in the USSR, Blackbird, Happiness is a Warm Gun, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Helter Skelter, Dear Prudence . . . it’s got so much variety

Regarding their early work – you do realize that they were working in a completely different time, when bands didn’t really write their own songs. Buddy Holly was one of the first, and the Beatles weren’t far behind.
The fact that their early albums have covers is not a valid point of criticism imo. For one thing, they were writing more songs than any other band at the time. As well as that the quality of their covers was outstanding – Twist and Shout, Roll over Beethoven, I wanna be your man, Money – are all outstanding performances, regardless of who wrote them

Man, im a massive Beatles fan you dont have to tell me.

But as for "regardless of who write them", i disagree.

By this tokem i could re-record each Radiohead album on my own and stick myself in this thread.

whatawaster

MrStuffins wrote: »

Man, im a massive Beatles fan you dont have to tell me.

But as for "regardless of who write them", i disagree.

By this tokem i could re-record each Radiohead album on my own and stick myself in this thread.

If you could record each Radiohead again to as high a standard, or a higher standard, then maybe

Bill2673

lordgoat wrote: »

Alive and kicking!

Simple Minds!

Bill2673

I had a good long think about this,

and I can't think of anyone.

(certainly not Radiohead, but thats just a personal choice, evidently).

My closest would be the Pogues.

And the Smiths, as was mentioned.

And Bon Iver (although the fact that he only has one album might count against him).

Reganio 2

MrStuffins wrote: »

Man, im a massive Beatles fan you dont have to tell me.

But as for "regardless of who write them", i disagree.

By this tokem i could re-record each Radiohead album on my own and stick myself in this thread.

So any band/artist that has writers for them can't be great?

Its quite obviously not that logic that you could do it. As whatawaster said, if you could perform them to a better degree than the original artist then yeah, you can put yourself in this thread.

Bill2673

MrStuffins wrote: »

Man, im a massive Beatles fan you dont have to tell me.

But as for "regardless of who write them", i disagree.

By this tokem i could re-record each Radiohead album on my own and stick myself in this thread.

On a like for like, I would consider Beatles albums from the point they first started writing all the songs.


Certainly, from around mid 1964 when A Hard Days Night was released through to 1969 when Abbey Road was recorded, no other artist or group released material of such consistently high quality. And also, very productive, albums every nine months or so.

rcaz

Bill2673 wrote: »

And Bon Iver (although the fact that he only has one album might count against him).

Hahah, I would say that definitely doesn't count. From a mathematical point of view :P

JayJay10

Of course this is only my opinion but i think the following havent got a bad album between them.

ACDC
Kasabian
The Strokes
Yeah Yeah Yeahs
Arctic Monkeys

MrStuffins

Reganio 2 wrote: »

So any band/artist that has writers for them can't be great?

Its quite obviously not that logic that you could do it. As whatawaster said, if you could perform them to a better degree than the original artist then yeah, you can put yourself in this thread.

That's not what i'm saying. They can be great at what they do sure.

But for me, to be considered an "artist" (your word not mine) they must first create art, not just reproduce someone elses.

Bill2673

MrStuffins wrote: »

That's not what i'm saying. They can be great at what they do sure.

But for me, to be considered an "artist" (your word not mine) they must first create art, not just reproduce someone elses.

So where would you leave Frank Sinatra in this scenario? Or Elvis? or Christy Moore.

There is creative art, and there is interpretive art.

Jeff Buckleys version of Hallelujah is a thing of beauty, although he didn't write the song.