On Longevity

i'd like some hawtchix on my longevity right about now...



...


it's better to release one or two fucking astonishingly jawdropping albums and then die, like Jeff Buckley or Nick Drake. or 7A7P, though they only broke up...
 
I think there are as many bands that will last a long time now as there were in the '80s. Pretty soon a band formed in the late '80s will be at 20 years. My Dying Bride is pretty old, and their last two albums were quite good for a band with that long a career. I'm sure Opeth will keep going for a few more years now that they have the commercial success to do so. In Flames is getting up there too.

Just like with Maiden and Motorhead, the bands that can financially keep going for decades probably will.
 
The Greys said:
I like middle Neurosis, but the last 2 cds were just boring to me.

souls at zero and time of grace are especially awsome.

Heh I actually LOVE the last two. Eye of every storm took me a little longer to appreciate but I think its a perfect album now. You really don't like Sun that never sets?
 
COBHC420X said:
I dont really consider Motorhead as a big name in metal.

WTF!??! :zombie:

Anyways, I would always prefer a great album to a mediocre one. Who wouldn't. I think that the inspiration and fuel within a newer/younger band is more bright thus putting out amazing albums. If together for a while, you kind of run out of ideas, unless you somehow mutate into something totally different. Also, as said, the inspiration isnt so much there as you have made your fans, earned your respect, etc etc and lose that fire that burns inside so tenaciously. I dont know if it is coming out right, but I know at least what I am trying to say anyways. lol

That being said, I am really loking forward to the new Maiden album even though they havent put out a good album in almost 20 years imho.
 
Carcassian said:
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 ?

Well for convience' sake I'd prefer a band just to make a few great albums and then call it a day. It gets really tiring saying "oh yeah I love [fill in blank], well the first [#] albums anyway, the last [#] sucked, except for the second to last which had a few tracks, but otherwise they rule!"
 
Hmmmmmm. Thanks for the replies.

It was a dumb question actually, but then again I was quite drunk.

Having said that, I love Motorhead, and while the basic template hasn't really changed since 1986 or so, they consistantly put out "7/10" albums every couple of years. I'd rather hear new stuff every couple of years, than see them fold and have the prospect of no new 'Head stuff.
 
hm Bolt Thrower keep putting out solid stuff... it just depend of the band.

If the band is going to put an album every two years because the label told them so, they will release average records but if they take time to create each of their record it can be a good succession of great albums.
 
When a good band jumps ship early, they obviously cut their losses and save themselves from having a few quality records diluted in a largely inferior discography. It's kind of sad to see bands who were once at the top of their game stick around way past their expiration date. I can think of a lot of death metal bands alone off the top of my head who ended on a high note (Angel Corpse, Demilich, God Macabre, even Carcass to a lesser extent), and perhaps I and others remember them more fondly for that. At one point I probably would have chosen those who quite while they were ahead, but over time I've grown to appreciate how bands evolve over longer stretches. I really do prefer when an older band can stick it out and still catch my ear after 8 or 9 records, even if their entire catalogue isn't flawless. Priest, Napalm Death or My Dying Bride, for instance, have had less than stellar periods in their careers, but they both bounced back at points. And even if they didn't exactly top the great tunes they wrote early on, they still made something worthwhile and I love to see bands redeem themselves.

Actually, in some ways, I almost prefer a band with a few duds on their track record since it helps me to better appreciate the good albums they shoot back with while showing they have a taste for being adventurous. Because as much as I think Cannibal Corpse can still compentently write a good song, it doesn't really matter when it's basically the same song they already wrote several times years ago.
 
^^Ditto

For me it really depends. For instance, Devin says he's done with SYL because he has nothing more to say. In this case, I totally agree with him because The New Black was about average for me. However, for bands like Amorphis, if they wouldn't have continued we'd be fucked (because eclipse wouldn't be around). Also, Dark Tranquillity have been around almost 20 years and they still kick ass IMHO, but only because they've changed their sound.
 
To me, a band can release all the bad albums in the world after they've already released something I like or love. If I don't like it, I won't listen to it, but who am I to judge their desire to keep making music? That I don't like what they put out later in their career doesn't affect my enjoyment of the albums I *do* like.
 
My main problem with bands that keep going on forever is that I just stop caring about their new material even if it is decent or good. Iron Maiden for example. From what I heard the last few albums with Bruce back have been pretty good. But I already own their first 8 albums and that is pretty much it as far as my Maiden fix is concerned. Sure, the new album may be good, but do I really need it in my collection? I don't really feel that I do. The same goes with bands like Motorhead and AC/DC. I own their "classic" albums, but eventhough their current albums may still be quite good, I just don't really feel that they would add anything to my collection and are essentially just kind of pointless.

I mean, more power to them for still releasing quality music after all these years. And maybe new fans of the band will like it (as well as super die hard fans who need to collect every single thing they've ever released) but it pretty much leaves me cold.

So I guess I feel that from a fan (me) point of view, I'd rather just see bands quit once they've exhausted their creative energy and have nothing new to say. But from a bands perspective I can totally understand why they wouldn't. As long as they are enjoying it they can make albums until they're 75 (which I expect Lemmy probably will if he makes it that far). I just won't be buying them.