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'd say a certain minimum quantity is required to qualify. Talk Talk are in my personal big 6. They have five albums of which I don't like the first one a lot, and the second one is pretty good but not at top level. Numbers 3, 4, 5 are in my top, dunno, 50? albums of all time, and that's good enough. Based on two stellar albums I wouldn't allow a band in. (On the other hand, Art Zoyd, another one of my heroes, have a catalogue that is bigger than that of all original RIO bands combined, which I also count in their favour.)

Ultimately I'd compare bands on their best 3-5 albums, with an added bonus if bands have more than 5 at that level. So-so material on top of that wouldn't influence my decision in either direction.

 

I say go with your gut, if it feels like they are great to you then that's what they are, don't apply arbitrary rules about number of releases.

 

Dün - Eros
Hermann Szobel - Szobel

 

are two that come to mind.

 
EDIT:

 

All Traps On Earth - A Drop Of Light
Lost Crowns - Every Night Something Happens

 

are another two that come to mind.

 

 

So my top 10 bands (prog and non-prog*)

1) Camel

2) Runrig*

3) IQ

4) Horslips

5) Mostly Autumn

6) Wolfstone*

7 Strawbs

8) Marillion

9) Genesis

10) Riverside

As you can see, I'm a huge fan of Celtic Rock!

Quality is in the eye, err ear, of the beholder. My quality may be someone else trash so I don't have a problem with quantity. 

Grumpyprogfan wrote: ^A band with only one spectacular release? First UK album. Sure UK continued without Holdsworth and Bruford but weren't the same. Nova Collective, a project with players from other bands, did a one off album that is killer.  So for me, quality over quantity.

My point was only one release however spectacular not more than one release of which one is spectacular, I'm thinking more of Weidorje, Dun, Hermann Szobel and the like. I personally wouldn't consider any of those for a top 10 best of all time list on the basis of only releasing one album.

All Traps On Earth & Lost Crowns are likely to release follow up albums so don't really count. Dun & Szobel are great examples as would be Weidorje. 

Anglagard is another one that comes to mind. 

Yeah...this is where I am as well. 

As much as love, say Hatfield & The North's two albums, I would never put them in my top 10 bands, just because there are other bands that produced similar ranked material, just more of it. More of high quality will always be ranked higher than less of high quality in my mind. 

I also feel I must count a band's entire discography, so if they have say 3 great albums out of 12, they will rank much lower overall, even if I love those three albums dearly. 

If you're a band who only has 1 or 2 albums, and they're bangers, then they have left on a high. Kind of like a TV show that knows when to stop at season 3 or 4.

But then again, if there are even a few songs from a mountain of sub-par material that are exceptionally good, that elevates a band for me. 

So long story short...I don't know.

Interesting! My mind almost always defaults to "If there's a lot of it, most of it probably sucks", lol.

Quality for me all the way. U.K. is the perfect example to me; they only needed that one killer record, and it's one of my favorites of any artist in progressive rock - and you never hear about them.

Contrast with some of the bands on here with 15+ albums, where the pattern is the first four usually have their high points, a bunch of mid-tier rankings, a few 2+s, etc.

 

There is a guy whose name I forget but when I look at the new releases thread he seems to release 6-10 albums a month - I can't believe these are all good (but then I can't believe anyone could even listen to all of them).

 

EDIT - it's Phrozenlight - something like 30 new release so far in 2020.

Both terms, quality and quantity, imply that the listener is the composer and the visionary that creates the music.

This is NOT TRUE ... if you see the clouds and the sky and represent that musically, no one would know or understand what is quality or quantity ... after all three minutes out of the rest of the day, does not exactly show some "quality" where as several hours would certainly qualify as "quantity", even though that's like saying there is nothing else happening during that time ... which suggests one is not listening anyway ... and simply not composing something "real" ... just an imaginary scene.

This is the hard part of a lot of the "modern art" ... how do you tell Picasso that in Guernica there is too much cutting? How do you tell Miro that two lines is one too many? And I personally feel that at that point the appreciation for the work falls apart ... 

It is the same thing for a lot of writers ... when do you say that Melville stops being quality and begins being just quantity? When do you say that Crime and Punishment in Progressive Music is way too much or too little in the threads at PA?

Progressive Music, even though some insist is just pop music ... has to be regarded better and taken a bit more seriously than the "songs" that too many folks here look at ... not to mention the "formats" that are consistently repeated, not to mention the bad drumming, and the lead guitar going on top LOUD in exactly the same spot on the song ... that is not representative of "progressive music" when it first started out ....

I refuse to use the term ... you and I have no way possible to state, that Tchaikovsky's description of the scenery in his mind is not right or too long, and its quality suffers ... likewise I will NEVER state that CTTE of ECHOES is too long and that its quality suffers.

I wish we gave the artists more respect and appreciation ... it is the one thing that will kill progressive music faster ... and this fan "control" that the artist is his pet cat and/or dog to do his bidding is a bit sickening in my estimation ... and I wish we could separate this a bit better ... the artistic qualities and designs of a lot of the music we love are very important ... but we decide for the musicians what they should do?

There was a team owner in a League ... upset with the fan's comments on their loss ... and he said the right thing ... GO GET YOUR OWN TEAM! ... and then be brave and man enough to put up with the sick comments! Many of these things we love, people put their heart and blood into it ... and we go about it just like it is all just another top ten song that we don't like because its quality is stupid and its quantity is ridiculous!

Baaahhjeezhus ... I sound like early Frank Zappa already!

Secondly even the best of bands grow stale. When you get the same musicians within bands working together year after year they get to a point where they lose their inspiration. That's why so many bands break up. You find after so many albums of the same band, the quality of the music goes down. They might have a contract with a record company and have to produce an album so they go into a studio to lay down the tracks but the inspiration isn't there and what they produce just isn't very good. So it's quantity over quality.

Edit: Just reading Moshkito's comments above using the Art analogy. He's right to a point, but then you have artists like Salvador Dali who were short of cash near the end of their life, so they churned out the artwork to pay the bills. We like to think of artists we admire as beyond that sort of thing, but the reality is artists are just like you and I. At some point they need to pay the bills, at which point it often becomes quantity over quality.

Hi,

There was a reason why my mom hated Dali, Bunuel, and many of those folks my dad met many times when they discussed their art and work. She thought them dirty and ugly! 

In Dali's case, a lot of his money and possessions were taken over, stolen and hidden by a lot of Spanish dignitaries that were supporting the Generalissimo. So later in life, he had no choice but to sell out for some American money (Playboy was an example), as a way to cash in some of the wealth he had lost. So seeing him end up doing "quantity" instead of quality, was probably more a matter of his being able to have the time to work on something like he did before, it was all stolen! Not to mention that his ability to meet his friends and discuss a lot of anything, kinda slowed down for him badly ... and not many "artists", including writers and composers, survived the 30's, 40's and then were able to make a return in the 50's ... when a new era of arts appeared, specially in literature which exploded!

I read somewhere a long time ago, that he had mentioned that the Spanish Government had stolen more than 100 paintings ... and one could easily ask ... where are they now? Probably buried in the catacombs in Escuriel, or Madrid, that houses history like so much of the Vatican has for over 1000 years!

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. 

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? 

I disagree, Yes have made enough good music post-Drama to warrant their continuation. Granted "Open Your Eyes" and "Heaven and Earth" are not near the standard of their classic 70s output but there's enough good tracks on The Ladder, Keys, Talk and Magnification to justify their existence. Beside it's their choice to continue or not, who are we to say when they should call it a day?

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).

Because when considering an act's legacy, you need to take the totality of their work into account. Like you said, if they want to fun and earn money, that's absolutely fine provided they are ok with that becoming apart of their now watered-down legacy. Instead of being known as that group that, in a flash of artistic genius, made an impactful concise musical statement, they become that band that "had a good run" but now they're just some old-blokes doing this for money (for the record, Pete Townshend himself has admitted in interviews that this is exactly what he is doing). 

Obviously its their choice. But its no less my right to judge their artistic legacy as a result of their choices. 

And for the record, I LOVE Magnification. In fact, had they stopped there, that would have gone a long way in rectifying the damage they did in the 90's. But put Yes aside and speak a bit more abstractly: quality concentration matters. A band with 5 perfect records has a stronger legacy than a band 10 records, 5 of which are perfect and another 5 are duds. 

Hi,

I honestly think that the source of a lot of these comments, is the like/dislike sort of thing ... for crying out loud, Mozart had hundreds of pieces of music, and we only heard 10 of them, and we're going to assume that the rest is second rate crap.

That is just not fair, given whatever circumstances and needs at the time.

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!

It's all subjective anyway, these 5 "duds" would be your opinion, other people will disagree.

I love these stupid types of comments, so we can't honestly talk critically about our personal tastes in music, if those comments are negative, unless we are in a band? 

Where's your threshold? Is strumming in my bedroom and loading it up on youtube enough? Do I need to have performed gigs? Does bandcamp count or do I need a record contract?

This is an internet forum, we are here to talk about music, if everyone plays nice all the time it's boring. If you can't take the fair and balanced criticism then don't release the music.

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. 

I hope you realize Moshkito how easy it is to flip around what you just said. How about "don't get your own band if you  are not man enough to handle the negative stuff!" 

Also, to all of you commenters who claiming that due the inherit subjectivity in evaluating music there is no value in setting crtiteria for evaluating a band's legacy, that's fine. But just bear in mind, you guys are participants on a web site that votes and then ranks albums and then discusses the reasons behind those ratings in reviewed and a forum. So while you may say you believe it is subjective, your actions via participation on the archives say otherwise. 

The difference is that Genesis making an album that I don't like will not cost me any money, not occupy any space in my collection, and not even cost me more than half an hour of time after which I'll probably stop listening. Sports is inherently competitive and somebody who isn't up for the job anymore takes the space of somebody else in a team, which can be bad. But the once legendary band producing a supposedly bad album doesn't do any harm. Surely it doesn't make me unlisten their earlier stuff that I liked. So in Genesis vs Anglagard Genesis wins 7:3 (say - I haven't re-evaluated all these albums for writing this posting), and the stuff that they did later which I can do very well without doesn't bother me in the least for this comparison.

Hi,

The point is, that many of these folks are scared of doing their own thing, and since they can't, they would rather trash someone else because this makes their "opinion" more important than the music.

I disagree.

The music, is far more important than any external opinion.

That is NEVER to say that someone's comments do not have any weigh or strength ... but it is to say, that the person over there with the courage to do the work, is the one that is showing the music!

As a writer, for example, I do not write for anyone's comments, although there are a few people here whose comments I happen to appreciate and take them to heart! What I write is from the inside, via the inside WITH the words of the inside ... and as such someone saying it is not right, or they don't like it ... doesn't matter to me! It's my child! And just because it's color is not the same you or others see, some folks will think it is wrong, or bad.

That is gross, and inappropriate under any condition. The life of the arts, for hundreds of years would not have survived if it were not for some internal constitution that helped bring it about ... and no one can tell me that music is any different!

ssmarcus wrote: ... Also, to all of you commenters who claiming that due the inherit subjectivity in evaluating music there is no value in setting criteria for evaluating a band's legacy, that's fine. But just bear in mind, you guys are participants on a web site that votes and then ranks albums and then discusses the reasons behind those ratings in reviewed and a forum. So while you may say you believe it is subjective, your actions via participation on the archives say otherwise.

Exactly my point. These folks proclaim to be progressive in their views about the music, but they are always ready to put someone down, and not help the band along, because it sounds like this or that ... now the thread about that one band that has been about for 20 plus years is that it sounds like PF ... so do many other bands that use the same instruments ... c'mon ... go to Guitar Center and see what you can buy!

I will joke about the Sunday Morning Rock Constitutionals with Neal Morse, but that is not a put down ... in many ways, it is a chance for many of us ... to go and do something nice that is worth believing in ... at least in theory! 

But sitting here and putting down composers for their supposed "quality", or "quantity" is utterly ridiculous ... heck ... there is not a composer, writer, or painter, that does not have bagatelles in their closet! (Definition on the net ... a short, light piece of music, especially one for the piano. Or guitar!)

 

Exactly, not to mention that 90125 is their biggest selling album I believe

Hi,

I just have to ask ... why does the biggest selling album is important in a discussion of "quality vs quantity"?

Again, is all we can talk about just commercial success because we don't believe in things that we think are not right or good? I happen not to thing that album is very good, and is one of the few of their albums I DO NOT HAVE!

I'm just saying that stopping Yes after Drama would have wiped out their biggest selling album. It's not my favourite Yes album either but quality is subjective and the fact that it's their biggest seller means it would possibly be voted top in a worldwide poll and a lot of people would say it's their highest quality album.

I would tend to agree, but just to play devil's advocate: is one person's product another person's music?

This is actually an excellent point and I had to think about it for a bit. While you almost had me, I am still maintining my conetntion. True, in sports, a player passed his prime being cynically brought onto the field by some last place team looking to cash in is hurting the game  by replacing a spot for a more competitive player. And this is not the case for a musician taking up space on a stage, exactly like you said. But that is not quite my point. 

Simply stated, if you agree that a player or artist's legacy should consider the sum total of their work, then repeated and consistently poor performances for the sake of money, especially after the artist's or player's peak has passed, will hurt that legacy. 

FYI, Rick Wakeman agrees with me (kind of) "I always said that I never want to walk onstage and not play to the standard I want to. I don’t want anyone to applaud anything I do because of what I used to do, so there comes a time to stop.":  https://www.loudersound.com/news/rick-wakeman-the-yes-name-should-have-been-retired-when-chris-squire-died#:~:text=News-,Rick%20Wakeman%3A%20The%20Yes%20name%20should%20have,retired%20when%20Chris%20Squire%20died&text=%2FWireImage%20%2D%20Getty%29-,Rick%20Wakeman%20says%20it%20would%20have%20been%20%E2%80%9Cthe%20decent%20thing,bassist%20Chris%20Squire%20in%202015." rel="nofollow - https://www.loudersound.com/news/rick-wakeman-the-yes-name-should-have-been-retired-when-chris-squire-died#:~:text=News-,Rick%20Wakeman%3A%20The%20Yes%20name%20should%20have,retired%20when%20Chris%20Squire%20died&text=%2FWireImage%20%2D%20Getty)-,Rick%20Wakeman%20says%20it%20would%20have%20been%20%E2%80%9Cthe%20decent%20thing,bassist%20Chris%20Squire%20in%202015.

 

So you guys are basically agreeing with me. You're saying that Yes' later career output WAS quality and therefore their legacy is not watered down at all. 

As I've clarified a few times already in different words, I don't care what you think about Yes. I am simply stating that however you evaluate a band's legacy (as subjective of an exercise as that may be), consistency across and concentration of quality matter. And given that you guys do indeed like Yes' output across all eras, you're agreeing with me. 

That's basically what I'm saying but you did kind of suggest that you thought they should have knocked it on the head after "Drama" when you said "Think about how much more mythical Yes' legacy would be had they done that" then later suggested they should have given up after "Magnification ("the damage they did in the 90's"). 

Hi,

"Borefest's" ... are not that bad ... in the old days when you were stoned immaculate at the Fillmore, all the "borefests" were far out ... and no one has ever complained about The Grateful Dead ... maybe because they were far richer than anyone else ... and they couldn't careless about the comments anyway. They still played and did their thing ... and while I'm not a great fan, they have, in every concert, some really fine moments!

I think that "commercial music" has taken away the ability of a lot of "fans" to enjoy music ... and I kinda see folks that say that about "borefests" as someone that will not appreciate classical music later in their life ... and find some far out and wonderful things done with it ... and rock music tried ... were it not that we now consider "progressive" anyone that develops something from a riff only ... and then the whole piece still has exactly the same parts as any song listed in the top ten!

To me, THAT is a borefest ... continually doing the same thing ... over and over ... and it's about time that drummers go back to school to learn how to "accent" the music, not just playing a beat straight through it and make it sound .... the same ... and expect the lyrics to bring it alive. This kind of thing is by far the poorest of all "progressive" bands, many of which are listed here.

They deserve their mention and nickel, but perhaps not within a "progressive" mold since what they do is not progressive at all!

Quality is about developing something different and doing it well ... or you can give that guitarist a 9th string so he can solo even longer! AND he still won't be able to be as good as Egberto Gismonti was!

 

Has to be quality but it is a very tricky question. Would you rather prefer your favorite band to have 5 stellar studio albums out of 20, or a band that released 5 albums and they were all pretty good?

However, if a band can manage to handle both then I'm in.

Still, if I like only one album by a band that has released more than 15, then what?

Does that matter to anyone? I guess it would be a 'me' issue, so...

It's a pretty damn endless topic

How does it go in Physics?

QUALITY IS INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO QUANTITY!

I guess we didn't go to school a whole lot, hey?  AND remember anything!