Quality vs Quantity

ssmarcus wrote: thief wrote: It's kinda same with sports comparisons... like, would you rather have KAJ on your team (15+ great seasons) or Shaq (half that number, motivational problems peppered his career, but 1999-00 season surpassed anything Kareem achieved imo). When it comes to bands, coming up with legendary, legit 5-star skull-crushing material is the most important. I'd rather have Änglagård with 3 near perfect releases than a band with, say, 20+ studio albums, of which a quarter is of "very good but not earth shattering" quality (say, I dunno, Uriah Heep). The best of both worlds: lengthy, quality career with a number of top tier albums to boot. Jethro Tull is such a band for sure (min. 4 max rating albums, 13+ of good/very good quality imo). I think a sports comparison is apt here. For my money, when I think about Shaq's legacy, it is DEFINITELY tarnished by his lack of motivation at certain points. My favorite example here is Jim Brown (from gridiron football). The guy only played 9 seasons, but they were perfect and he walked away while on top. That's a levekl of self awareness I am looking for in an artist, athlete, or entertainer of any kind.

We currently live in an age where there are different kinds of musicians and different sorts of bands. I've listed a few below, but there can be considerable overlap and even hopping from one scenario to another. Each one has its merits and drawbacks, as well as levels of Quality and Quantity.

Scenario 1: If a band is a major touring act, relying on money from gigs and sales of music/merchandise to pay the bills, then fan criticism and support from their label is critically important. If the music isn't deemed to be up to snuff, then the band could turn into a fly by night business. The pressure is on! A label and fans can drop you like a hot potato. But, the risk/reward ratio is much higher. The costs are also much higher, since payment must be rendered for studio time, album production costs, managers, engineers, etc. The product has to be flawless. Quantity and quality have to be high, or the business model fails. Artists in this category must develop a thick skin and be extremely motivated and determined, in order to ride out times of famine.

Scenario 2: If the band is self-supporting, then they have a bit more freedom to do what they like with the songwriting, since they are - after all - footing the bill. The drawback is that the source of their funding (their day jobs) is going to drain vast amounts of time that could have otherwise been devoted to making music. For this scenario, fan criticism should be considered in a constructive manner to improve the sound quality where possible, but ultimately it is the band who decides what they want to do and where they want to go with their music. This type of band might do some limited touring, or it might be an internet band, but it is highly unlikely that profits will do any more than help pay for some of the equipment. They typically have a significant web presence, put out real physical albums with copyrights, and distribute digitally through avenues like Spotify playlists, Pandora Radio, and Last.FM. They usually do not have the high production quality of the touring acts on major labels. Quantity is typically lower (since they are working stiffs).

Scenario 3: Then, there are the hobbyists. They write and record music for the sheer pleasure of it. They might release their work digitally though Soundcloud or Bandcamp or whatnot, but they don't really care about making any money off of it. They may not even copyright songs, and "songs" may be merely sound bytes, riffs, or soundscapes. They do appreciate getting "likes". Quality and quantity vary, but overall it is typically deemed to be of lower quality.

Edited by Jaketejas - August 20 2020 at 09:54

moshkito wrote: Your taste, or mine, should have no say in the release of the music ... so if you think this or that album is not as good, don't buy it, but don't go around trashing the artist for his/her work ... it might have been the best they could do at the time! I mean ... how many super pieces do you know Stravinsky to have? How about Beethoven? Not everything they did was "great" ... so, as a FAN ... some folks are really taking it personal ... dang it guys ... GET YOUR OWN BAND ... and see if you are man enough to put up with the negative stuff! I doubt it!

Lewian wrote: ssmarcus wrote: I will die on the hill of quality. I wish bands would have more self awareness about their legacies and know when to say enough is enough, my band has no more to say. I totally disagree with that. If they do a bad album, how does it harm? I don't need to listen to it if I don't want to. They can have fun and earn money with music as long as they want as far as I'm concerned, and I don't see in the least why I should lower my overall rating of a band that did 10 super albums in the 70s or 80s because they did an (in my opinion) crap album in 2007 that I only listen to once and not even in full?

Lewian wrote: ssmarcus wrote: I will die on the hill of quality. I wish bands would have more self awareness about their legacies and know when to say enough is enough, my band has no more to say. I totally disagree with that. If they do a bad album, how does it harm? I don't need to listen to it if I don't want to. They can have fun and earn money with music as long as they want as far as I'm concerned, and I don't see in the least why I should lower my overall rating of a band that did 10 super albums in the 70s or 80s because they did an (in my opinion) crap album in 2007 that I only listen to once and not even in full?

ssmarcus wrote: Argo2112 wrote:  I was looking at the 10 Ten Progressive Band thread going around now.   When I was trying to make my selection and figure out what order to put them   in I realized I had to balance out bands that had a lot of very good, but not necessarily great material vs   bands may have fewer songs I like , but the ones I like are outstanding.  So where do you fall on the Quality vs Quantity discussion? I will die on the hill of quality. I wish bands would have more self awareness about their legacies and know when to say enough is enough, my band has no more to say. I know I read somewhere that Robert Fripp has said somethign similar when asked about making mor King Crimson albums.  For my taste, a tight high density discography like say Led Zeppelin's or Tool's carries so much more weight than say Yes. I mean just imagine Yes called it a quits after their late 70's breakup and their last album was Drama. Think about how much more mythical Yes' legacy would be had they done that. At this point, not only do we see them as mortals, but deeply flawed ones. In number terms, at this point, most of their musical output is actually sub-par which is crazy to think about.

Argo2112 wrote:  I was looking at the 10 Ten Progressive Band thread going around now.   When I was trying to make my selection and figure out what order to put them   in I realized I had to balance out bands that had a lot of very good, but not necessarily great material vs   bands may have fewer songs I like , but the ones I like are outstanding.  So where do you fall on the Quality vs Quantity discussion?

Just be careful which balls you let drop in this juggling act!

Do the best you can in the time you can spare with the equipment you have that falls within your budget. And, leave some dough aside for getting it out there to the masses or nobody is ever going to hear your masterpiece.

See? I'm an optimist. I did NOT put masterpiece in quotes.

Obviously, someone who has a long day job with five kids is most likely going to put out an album that is probably of lesser ... let's call it production quality ... than a touring musician who spends 5 hours a day with a metronome and has unlimited access to a fully equipped studio. But, that doesn't mean the album from the working stiff isn't worth listening to, or that it doesn't have value. I've heard a number of songs of exceptional musical value that were recorded with nothing more than a four-track.

In my opinion, there should be a careful balance between rawness and production. Overly produced albums are often boring. There can be something magical about plugging in, playing, and hitting record. The sweet spot is probably somewhere in between.

Edited by Jaketejas - August 19 2020 at 15:02

I think there's two forces in action. Firstly there's listener reaction to the music. You get an album like Tales From Topographic Oceans and people will argue that's it's quantity over quality with the music spread over four album sides. Personally I didn't see it at the time. I still don't see it, but others complain about it. Then there's certain people who change their minds over time so who''s right? Maybe because it's Yes people are going it like it anyway. If Yes did a cover for Jingle Bells they would probably like it. 

Edited by iluvmarillion - August 19 2020 at 00:45

Something much more recent, and looking like a one-off that I think is brilliant, is How Much Are You Willing To Forget? by Flicker.