Longevity Vs Short Huge Impact

[gregjohnson1229]

What is move impressive. A band like Aerosmith/Neil Young with longevity and successful albums throughout the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and 00's. Or a short career like Jimi Hendrix, Cream, The Beatles, and GNR who he short lived career but, left tremoundous impact.

IMO if you are an artist like Jimi Hendrix who had a 4 year career in the sportlight. (yes he had a career before then but he was backing up the Isley Brothers and Little Richard) To have to impact that he has had that we has gone on for 40 years and counting is absolutely stunning. What Cream was able to do in two years is absolutely incredible.

My question which is more impressive? Longevity or Shorter Career with the impact.

 

[That 70s Guy]

Longevity

 

[Death on Credit]

In my experience, bands who are short liv ed but make a huge impact usually make as many GOOD albums as bands with longevity.

The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, the Ramones, David Bowie, Lou Reed, and many other bands with longevity going for them would have been so much better if they didn't last so long.

 

[ComfortablyNumb]

Short career huge impact.

Operation Ivy, Sex Pistols, Minor Threat, Nirvana, Cream, Hendrix, The Doors, The Germs before they got back together in '05, Green River, Mother Love Bone, Stooges, MC5.

They had short careers, but they had a huge impact on music.

I only find longevity impressive if you constantly put out amazing albums.

 

[The Beatles]

What is move impressive. A band like Aerosmith/Neil Young with longevity and successful albums throughout the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and 00's. Or a short career like Jimi Hendrix, Cream, The Beatles, and GNR who he short lived career but, left tremoundous impact.

IMO if you are an artist like Jimi Hendrix who had a 4 year career in the sportlight. (yes he had a career before then but he was backing up the Isley Brothers and Little Richard) To have to impact that he has had that we has gone on for 40 years and counting is absolutely stunning. What Cream was able to do in two years is absolutely incredible.

My question which is more impressive? Longevity or Shorter Career with the impact.

My vote goes to a short and very impacting career. The Beatles are a good example. They've impacted more than GnR or many other bands who have lad longevity.

Don't get me wrong, longevity is impressive, but not nearly as much as impact. A band like GnR can have some good albums early on, and then start to suck later on, but people still buy their albums because GnR is a very famous band. For example, Appetite For Destruction was an amazing album, and got many in to GnR. After Use Your Illusion, things began going downhill quickly, yet people still bought their albums. Now, we're at Chinese Democracy, which is awful, yet it sold well.

Maybe GnR is a bad example, but The Beatles released nearly twice the amount of albums in their short career than GnR has in their long one. And the Beatles had many QUALITY albums, as opposed to GnRs 1 or 2.

Edit: I just reread and found that you said GnR has had a short career, but they've spanned about nearly 25 years. Thats not very short.

Aerosmith is pretty much the same story, but with more albums. But again, they've been steadily declining since their prime, yet selling well.

 

[The Beatles]

In my experience, bands who are short liv ed but make a huge impact usually make as many GOOD albums as bands with longevity.

The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, the Ramones, David Bowie, Lou Reed, and many other bands with longevity going for them would have been so much better if they didn't last so long.

This basically sums up my huge 2 paragraph statement.

 

[The Beatles]

Short career huge impact.

Operation Ivy, Sex Pistols, Minor Threat, Nirvana, Cream, Hendrix, The Doors, The Germs before they got back together in '05, Green River, Mother Love Bone, Stooges, MC5.

They had short careers, but they had a huge impact on music.

I only find longevity impressive if you constantly put out amazing albums.

...The Germs...?

 

[Death on Credit]

The Germs before they got back together in '05

I'm still mad at them for doing that. I was in that movie, What We Do is Secret, and the guy that they got to fill in for Darby was such a ****ing tool, I couldn't believe that any of the band members could stand to be around him.

 

[gregjohnson1229]

My vote goes to a short and very impacting career. The Beatles are a good example. They've impacted more than GnR or many other bands who have lad longevity.

Don't get me wrong, longevity is impressive, but not nearly as much as impact. A band like GnR can have some good albums early on, and then start to suck later on, but people still buy their albums because GnR is a very famous band. For example, Appetite For Destruction was an amazing album, and got many in to GnR. After Use Your Illusion, things began going downhill quickly, yet people still bought their albums. Now, we're at Chinese Democracy, which is awful, yet it sold well.

Maybe GnR is a bad example, but The Beatles released nearly twice the amount of albums in their short career than GnR has in their long one. And the Beatles had many QUALITY albums, as opposed to GnRs 1 or 2.

Edit: I just reread and found that you said GnR has had a short career, but they've spanned about nearly 25 years. Thats not very short.

Aerosmith is pretty much the same story, but with more albums. But again, they've been steadily declining since their prime, yet selling well.

I don't the curent GNR as GNR it is not the same. Izzy, Slash, Steven, Duff, and Axl had chemistry that could never be duplicated. They all fit perfectly.

 

[ComfortablyNumb]

...The Germs...?

They played a huge part in hardcore punk.

I think the Sex Pistols are the best example of a short career with a huge impact. They only released one album and honestly it had probably the biggest impact on music ever. The only other album I can think that had that impact is Nevermind.