How much loyalty to any one band?

I think it's lame when bands continue without an original guitarist. Frank was Sodom. I think if he stayed in the band Sodom could have had 2,3 more killer albums.
 
One thing that can be said about Sodom, is that they never went to shit or softened up, which is very rare for a thrash band that has been around as long as they have. Even Kreator released a couple different sounding, bad albums. Sodom has not. I even like Sodom's newest CD quite a lot. I actually already listened to it today, here at work.

You actually like Get What You Deserve? I always looked at that album as the way to tell who is just a poser who says they worship everything they've done when they've only heard a couple of albums and those who've actually heard all of them, because Get What You Deserve really fucking sucks, and it's appropriately titled for previously named posers.
 
Unless you're Megadeth and you get Marty Friedman.....

I'm talking about an original guitarist. A band should not continue without atleast one original guitarist.

Megadeth sucks. On Megadeth though if the band continued without dave on guitar that would make no sense. An original guitarist is very important to the foundation and style of a band.
 
I agree if I like an album from a band I'll purchase the album, if I end up liking the entire discography than I'll pick that up too.
 
One thing that can be said about Sodom, is that they never went to shit or softened up, which is very rare for a thrash band that has been around as long as they have. Even Kreator released a couple different sounding, bad albums. Sodom has not. I even like Sodom's newest CD quite a lot. I actually already listened to it today, here at work.

Very true, which is probably why I come closer than pretty much any other thrash band to owning the entire catalog (after Testament, by whom I do actually own all). In that way, I can respect them. But compared to other bands who hit a slump and subsequently recovered to one degree or another (Exodus, Testament, Kreator, Destruction), I think they have about as many below-average efforts and more still that are okay, but not great. The difference is that with the aforementioned bands, they changed into a style that didn't interest me at all, whereas Sodom merely did a poor job with the sound they already had.
 
I have probably 1,500 cds in my collection. The mass majority of which are metal of some sub-genre or another (Power,Death, Black, Thrash,Speed,Doom,Traditional, Progressive.. whatever ). I have been buying cds since the late 80's sometimes 2 to 3 cds a week . So yeah I have a lot of full discography I also have a lot of almost full discs either because I'm still looking for them, don't like 'em, or just don't feel like buying 'em. Depends on the band ,how much longer I live or if I still have a damn job.
 
Does anyone believe it's pointless to purchase a band's entire discography, especially when they have more than three releases? Do you just go for two of the better releases, buy one to get a taste, or blindly purchase every album?

It was a lot easier for me to have a complete discography of a band in the 80's, even early 90's.
Now the old bands complete discography aren't worth having and there's so many bands overall it's tough to get too attached to any particular one.
Manilla Road is a pretty new discovery for me and I'll most likely collect 'em all.
 
I dunno.
Tried the short clips on their site.
The first album sounds cool but by by 93 or so it sounds more like pop than metal to me.
Maybe it's a European thing.
 
Hmm.. if I really like the band, and can find their records in the shops, I try to give them my support by buying their albums.. I never bought any singles, limited editions or stuff like that however.. waste of money it seems to me.. But then some people dont share my opinion, which is fair enough :)

But there are only a couple of bands, all of whose albums deserve to be bought.. In most cases for me it is the two/three albums I love..