On Longevity

[Carcassian]

So, several of the "big" names in metal have been going for well over 20 years (Maiden, Priest, Motorhead) etc.

Do you think it's better to have two or three awesome albums and split, or a succession of ok to good albums over a longer period? Can you see any of the newer bands lasting as long as, say, Motorhead ?

 

[Bryn]

nope, metal was so huge back then compared to now.

 

[Carcassian]

I'm not sure that they sold more metal records, but I'd agree that they had much less choice in bands to support.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

It's better to release a few (or one) absolutely fantastic album(s) than to keep going and embarassing/sacrificing both your artistic integrity and vision by churning out year after year of ok-to-"good" stuff.

 

[COBHC420X]

I dont really consider Motorhead as a big name in metal. I dont really consider them acctualy metal. They influenced thrash in a way though. Bands like Metallica took Motorheads speed and Black Sabbath riffs and made it heavyer and "Thrashy". Only word I can find righ now to describe it.

And to answer your question, I think its better to have Only a few amazing albums insted of 20 shitty ones in a short period of time. As a band, you'll get more respect, and more people would look up to you because of the bands masterpieces.

 

[King Richard]

What?

 

[Necro Joe]

Do you think it's better to have two or three awesome albums and split?

Yep, though a long and varied career is always preferable to Motorhead style bands that release many solid but similar albums.

 

[Hammer of Might]

As long as the albums remain of a solid standard, I think band's should try to keep going, and the reason is that there are always new fans who want a chance to see them live.

Put it this way, some people will no doubt say that Maiden have never done anything that lives up to Seventh Son (for example). Does that therefore mean that they should have split after 1988?

Of course not - a band like Maiden remains a fantastic live experience, and an avenue into metal for many younger people who will then go on to check into other bands.

 

[Susperia]

I would much rather listen to an amazingly good album, rather than just an okay to good album, period.

 

[CF87]

I prefere when bands release acouple great albums and split. I can't think of many bands with a consistant carrer.

 

[Hammer of Might]

I would much rather listen to an amazingly good album, rather than just an okay to good album, period.

oh rly

 

[King Richard]

That's all based on personal preference and taste. There are numerous bands that I love their discography front and back.

edit: Concerning The Greys' posts.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

That's all based on personal preference and taste.

Like...everything?

@Susperia: :zombie: :zombie:

 

[Susperia]

What is so weird about my post?? Are you people reading it incorrectly or something?

 

[King Richard]

Like...everything?

@Susperia: :zombie: :zombie:

That wasn't my point.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

What is so weird about my post?? Are you people reading it incorrectly or something?

Who wouldn't rather listen to a wonderful album than a horrible one...

 

[Susperia]

Well, according to Carcassian, some people. =/

Besides, that's why I said ''period." because it was quite obvious to me.

 

[Scourge of Malice]

Neurosis have been around for over 20 years and IMO have gotten better as the years went on. thumbs up

 

[CF87]

I like middle Neurosis, but the last 2 cds were just boring to me.

souls at zero and time of grace are especially awsome.

 

[Mort Divine]

I'd rather a band make a few good albums, know that they no longer have anything to offer to themselves or anyone else by being in the band anymore, and then split in order to save their artistic integrity.

However, some bands like Pain of Salvation and Agalloch I want to keep going on forever