Consistently good or moments of brilliance - what's better?

[irocfan]

as it says in the title is it better to have a band who are just consistently (very?) good or a group whose output isn't as consistently high quality but have moments of jaw dropping brilliance but otherwise are 'ok....

[cherryowen]

That is a really good OP!

I'll have to think on that..............I may have to reference classical composers for it

[Turn7]

Good thread op!

Im not sure it really matters tbh.

You can have a fave band that make a couple of stunning albums, and then the drummer leaves and they turn shyte - Band of Skulls, Im looking at you here....

End of the day, Bands tend to evolve, so are unlikely to remain consistant.

For a bit of balance, Im a huge Frank Turner fan, but I dont always appreciate some his stuff - some of it grows, some of it isnt me at all, but the bulk of his output is fab......

So, I dont think there is a yes or no answer to the question.

[Hub]

Consistency probably - moreso in the old days when saving up pocket money to buy an album based on an amazing single, only to find the rest was rubbish and getting buyer's remorse! Less important perhaps these days with streaming playlists from various artists, bit still important for maintaining interest and fans!

[cherryowen]

Having thought about the OP, I'm going with consistency.

Two of my favourite groups are Pink Floyd and early (Fish years) Marillion. For me, both were consistently recording really good tunes with the occasional bit of brilliance ("Shine On........" for the former and "Assassing" for the latter). Giving that, I can forgive them for recording less memorable stuff like "Have a Cigar" and "Kayleigh".

My favourite classical piece is Vaughan-Williams' "Fantasy on a Theme of Thomas Tallis". Fourteen minutes of spine-tingling majesticness, but do I like his other work? Largely, no (excepting the Five Variants of Diveas and Lazarus)

As such, consistency for me

[Turn7]

I think I prefer moments thinking about it.....

For example, I adore the first 2 Stranglers albums and have done for multiple years, but the rest of their output leaves me cold.....

[worsy]

cherryowen said:

Having thought about the OP, I'm going with consistency.

Two of my favourite groups are Pink Floyd and early (Fish years) Marillion. For me, both were consistently recording really good tunes with the occasional bit of brilliance ("Shine On........" for the former and "Assassing" for the latter). Giving that, I can forgive them for recording less memorable stuff like "Have a Cigar" and "Kayleigh".

My favourite classical piece is Vaughan-Williams' "Fantasy on a Theme of Thomas Tallis". Fourteen minutes of spine-tingling majesticness, but do I like his other work? Largely, no (excepting the Five Variants of Diveas and Lazarus)

As such, consistency for me

Kayleigh is a good track, just overplayed. Don't criticise them for that, Post Fish Marillion, for me are more occasional bit of brilliance but many love them and disagree.

I think most bands to have made it must have had one brilliant piece (album) even if they then fall into a consistent plod. Chances are unless you are not a fan, you won't recognise the plod vs the brilliance. Fans are going to go with Great and Brilliant. Think of the bands where you like one track, or maybe one album.

[Roofless Toothless]

There’s a collection of ABBA videos on BBC right now. What is the next level up from consistently good?