Going out at the top

Is it better for a band to break up at their peak, or after a long drawn-out period of sub-par dinosaur albums? More simply: if King Crimson (1972-74 version) or Änglagård had stuck around for a few more albums, would it have meant a couple more stunning classics, or would it have meant something horrifying a la In the Hot Seat or Union? One can only guess…

Similarly, do listeners prefer that a band produce a number of albums of the same type, if said type works particularly well for that band, or that a band constantly evolve its sound, never releasing two albums that sound alike (even if one or two of them obviously hit on a great formula)?

Leave a Reply