Would bands who ended early be regarded as highly?

[RoundTheBend]

I've always wondered if bands like Nirvana, The Doors or any other group who is highly rated, but has lower output for studio albums would (maybe Velvet Underground?) be similarly highly regarded if they continued on like The Rolling Stones or Pearl Jam or what have you. It's like they didn't have as much time to make a mistake (except for Squeeze, but by that time the original members weren't there anymore).

Post Beatles for example - There's some good to great stuff, but I don't think nearly anything they did afterwards was as good (except for maybe John lyrically?).

And then for bands carrying on for like 30 years like U2 and R.E.M. - I personally have fanboi goggles on likely, but I feel like even their worst work is above average.

Make sense?

IDK -random thoughts.

[Liedzeit]

[Romanelli]

Songwriting.

I believe that songwriters have a point where the magic runs out. Every single one of them. From a guy who writes one crazy incredible song but everything else he does is average and unremarkable, to Bob Dylan. Everyone has a limit. And unless they die, pretty much everyone reaches that limit. The artist may not realize it, but they do.

The Beatles are a perfect example. Even though George Harrison was exploding as a songwriter at the end, it seemed like the songwriting of both Lennon and McCartney was running out of steam. They weren't there yet, but it was coming. Their solo careers bear that out (you can argue that they weren't writing together any more...but the truth is they never really did that a lot anyway). Partly because each member suddenly had the responsibility of writing a full albums worth of material instead of just half. But both Lennon and McCartney began to fizzle out as great songwriters quickly in the early 70's. Harrison too.

I believe that a big part of why The Beatles are as big as they are today is that they stopped when they did. And I think that they were fortunate to have ended the band before the songs dried up.

The Stones are a perfect example of not knowing when to stop. It has long been my personal opinion that had The Rolling Stones hung it up after recording Some Girls that their legacy would have been much greater. And that their classic albums would be held in much higher regard today. But Jagger & Richards ran out of songs. They tried for years after to recreate the magic, but they just didn't have it. Eventually, they just pretty much stopped trying and made their living as a glorified tribute band. Great for the bank account...but, I think anyway, not so much for the legacy...as far as serious music heads are concerned.

And I believe that some bands don't just run out of great material at once, but gradually over time. U2 can still put out a good album...but The Joshua Tree is out of their reach today. And some simply stop. And then there's Peter Gabriel. When Gabriel went solo, he released 5 albums in less than a decade. But after So...it was 6 years before Us, and then a full decade before Up. It's been 16 years now since he's released an album of original material. Is it because he's simply run out of songs?

Ultimately, everyone runs out of great material. Even Dylan. It may take one song...it may take 40 years. But everyone, I believe, has a limit. A point where the tank runs dry.
_________________
May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...

[Liedzeit]

Okay, I can’t resist. The one exception are the Sparks. They made their first Album in 1971. And their last release from last year sounds as fresh to me as anything they ever did. And it did reach no. 7 in the Album charts (although that does not mean much these days). Of course, it helped that they changed their style a couple of times.
They are not in a league with the Beatles or Stones or Dylan, but they still make records I like to listen to. To give a negative example. I am a big Bowie fan. And I was happy that he had a critical success with his last record. And it is not a bad one. But do I listen to it? Well, twice. And probably never again.

Listen to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j2CJN8rmBE
_________________
When the stewardess is near do not show any fear.

[theblueboy]

Well I think the answer to the original question is "yes". If the Sex Pistols kept trudging on making the same album again and again they would still be as highly regarded. That's what Ramones did and they are still seen as a seminal group.

Yes, when great musicians keep plugging away there is almost always going to be a dip. But no matter how many "I just called to say I love you's" it does nothing to diminish their reputation as great musicians. People just look back to the good stuff.

[Fischman]

Most of the groups I love that stuck around definitely faded. My most dramatic example is The Moody Blues. Their last half dozen albums were throwaways, but everything up through Long Distance Voyager was spectacular.

Now even for artists who face over time, sometimes they have a resurgence--a single album that approaches the best of what they produced during their heyday. While they may not be able to recapture the magic on a consistent basis, they can still have a temporary spike in performance. Some examples:

Rush: Clockwork Angels is generally regarded their best in at least a couple decades.

Joe Walsh: Analog Man is as consistent as anything in his catalog

Asia: XXX is badly overlooked and while it may not have the acclaim of a great comeback album, I am quite steadfast that it is by far their best effort ever, surpassing everything before it, including their debut.

Glen Campbell: Ghost on the Canvas is a stellar, cohesive, pseudo-concept album that holds together from beginning to end as easily his most poignant release.

[TheHutts]

I think most pop/rock artists do their best work in their 20s and 30s - which is quite different from jazz and classical.

There are exceptions of course - Sparks is a good call, they've never been an absolute favourite, but their 21st century material is arguably as good as their 1970s stuff. I think Paul Simon's generally made good albums in his 60s and 70s - he takes five years between releases, and each has its own distinct flavour. I don't think they're quite his best work, but his last three albums are all worth hearing.
_________________
https://albumreviews.blog

[LedZep]

Really depends. There are some bands that I love and think are (were) still writing excellent music after years and years of existence. Iron Maiden, Rush, David Bowie, Leonard Cohen, Judas Priest, Wu-Tang... I mean their newer stuff certainly isn't groudbreaking but it's highly enjoyable, some albums even comparable to their respective classics. Of course there are many who disagree because they aren't fans or just prefer the earlier sound of a certain band. But in all reality if Rush wrote Clockwork Angels in 1978, it would've been a classic imo. Same with Blackstar, The Book of Souls, You Want It Darker... Those living legends still attract new fans and I'm not sure if that'd be the case if they imploded while in their early years. At least not the same number of fans. That's definitely a reason to keep the band going.
Disbanding a band at the peak of creativity or especially untimely deaths may raise a band to "cult" or "legend" status, but there are other ways to achieve this status. I think that, for example, Kurt Cobain could've written at least one more classic album, but we'll never know...
Also, exactly how many examples of this are there? Nirvana, The Beatles, The Doors, Led Zeppelin and several others. And then there are tons of bands that were very creative and disbanded on top of their game, but no one knows them now. And maybe if they kept going, you'd hear about their new album (good or bad, no matter) and listened to all the great albums they'd written.
_________________
Finally updated the overall chart

2020s
90s

[indieshins]

I think that artists with a short discography (The Smiths, VU etc.) are overrated, not in the quality of the work, but in the fantasy of a perfect discography. Those two bands certainly couldn't have gone on the way they were - the interpersonal relationships were soured. But, in the minds of a lot of fans, I think there exists a feeling of what could have been, which strengthens the legacy. With other bands, we know what could have been, because it was.

To answer the question more fully, though, there are peaks and valleys in a lot of artists careers. Some completely fall off - The Rolling Stones, for example - while others have a resurgence. Bob Dylan post Desire had a very fallow period, by most accounts almost 20 years. But then he is thought to have come back strong with Time Out of Mind and subsequent albums. Now it seems he may have run out of steam again. But he's still regarded by many as the greatest lyricist of all time, and his 80's albums don't weaken that.

On a personal note, I wanted to mention (as I always must) Elvis Costello. If he'd stopped after Imperial Bedroom, his legacy would have been perfect. But then we wouldn't have gotten some of his best work. While it never possessed the unique "classic" energy of that initial run, much of his later work is brilliant. He's released whole albums since his heyday that I would call at least "solid." He's also released some stuff I don't care for. So what? It's what being a music fan is about sometimes - sticking with an artist as they search, sometimes fruitlessly, for a new direction.
_________________
Top 40 Greatest Music Albums by indieshins

[PurpleHazel]

It's possible that with some specific artists, breaking up early or dying young might've had a slight effect, but overall, I don't think a long career tarnishes early great work.

Artists who bear this out include Dylan, as indieshins pointed out. Not only did he have a late career resurgence with Time Out of Mind, Love and Theft and Modern Times, but he put out Blood on the Tracks and Desire more than a decade after he first became a superstar in the folk world. And the critical acclaim for his 1965-1969 work has never diminished. Neil Young's longevity also doesn't seem to have affected the status of his early albums, and Rust Never Sleeps came out a decade after Everybody Knows This is Nowhere.