Author Topic: Do you know any band with more music released than DT?.. (Read 4402 times)

ToT-147 · « **on:** February 28, 2015, 04:10:24 PM »

The specific question would be: do you know a band that has been released more amount of music than DT, in an equal period of time (26 years since first album), considering only the studio albums (12, which comprises a total of more than 14 hours)?...

I know some bands who have more albums than DT in the same period (like Stratovarius, Maiden, King's X, Genesis), and also with more music in global terms (like Kiss, Rush, Yes, Pink Floyd, etc), but none with both conditions.. $:-\$

The special thing about DT is obviously the fact that they have seven full-length albums and one double album.. Any thoughts about this?...

Kotowboy · « **Reply #1 on:** February 28, 2015, 04:13:54 PM »

Therapy?

13 albums since 1990.

Shadow Ninja 2.0 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 28, 2015, 04:19:20 PM »

Buckethead, probably

Actually, now that I think about it, Devin Townsend too. Something like 22 albums depending on how you count 'em.

Kotowboy · « **Reply #3 on:** February 28, 2015, 04:45:31 PM »

Yeah. Buckethead has an insane amount of music out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckethead_discography

Zyzzyva17 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 28, 2015, 05:06:11 PM »

I don't know about rock bands, but some jazz artists are quite prolific. After checking the numbers:

-Herbie Hancock had 32 studio albums after 26 years.
-Miles Davis had 51 studio albums after 26 years.
-Frank Sinatra had 52 studio albums after 26 years.

Even accounting for shorter album lengths, that is much more than DT. You could argue that it's not a valid comparison because a lot of that music was improvised, but it's still impressive.

KevShmev · « **Reply #5 on:** February 28, 2015, 05:09:45 PM »

If we can count solo artists, Zappa and Devin Townsend.

Also, the amount of music, most of very high quality, Steven Wilson has released in pretty much the same time period is staggering.

Kotowboy · « **Reply #6 on:** February 28, 2015, 05:31:42 PM »

I always like to bring up DT & Therapy? when talking about Tool & Metallica.

Metallica especially. Since 1991 - they've released 4 studio albums. 4 studio albums of original material in nearly 25 years.

Therapy? have released 13 albums since their 1991 debut and DT 's 12th album since 1991 is due this year.

dvargas · « **Reply #7 on:** February 28, 2015, 05:46:42 PM »

The Beatles 12 albums in 9 years.

Rodni Demental · « **Reply #8 on:** February 28, 2015, 06:10:59 PM »

Hmm, while DT haven't squeezed 9 albums into 12 years, the problem is the Beatles had a very short lifespan (at least in terms of output). Despite their amazing consistency in the 60s, we can't automatically assume they would have kept that up. A lot of bands are really busy at the start of their careers (sometimes pumping out 2 albums a year or at least 1 every year) but start slowing down after a while.

I suppose the question is when will this happen to DT? Not any time soon hopefully...

Kotowboy · « **Reply #9 on:** February 28, 2015, 06:24:12 PM »

Not while DT need to record and tour to keep up their lifestyle.

If they ever have that one album that sells like 15 million copies then maybe.

But I think they've sold like 15 million albums total ?

Zyzzyva17 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 28, 2015, 08:25:38 PM »

Quote from: Kotowboy on February 28, 2015, 06:24:12 PM

But I think they've sold like 15 million albums total ?

From the limited numbers I can find, I would put the total between 5 and 10 million.

Siddhartha · « **Reply #11 on:** February 28, 2015, 09:47:13 PM »

Frank Zappa.

KevShmev · « **Reply #12 on:** February 28, 2015, 09:52:29 PM »

Another one:

The Flower Kings

12 studio albums from 1995-2013

Four of them are double albums

Not counting bonus tracks, they comprise over 18 hours of music

It's even more staggering when you consider that the first 10 (and all four of the doubles) came from 1995-2007.

ZKX-2099 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 28, 2015, 10:54:32 PM »

Helloween has a lot of releases.

425 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 28, 2015, 11:15:53 PM »

Quote from: KevShmev on February 28, 2015, 05:09:45 PM

Also, the amount of music, most of very high quality, Steven Wilson has released in pretty much the same time period is staggering.

Neal Morse, too, ranks up there among remarkably prolific contemporary individual musicians. 19 solo albums since 1999 by Wikipedia's count. Throw in six Spock's Beard albums from 1995 to 2002, four Transatlantic albums since 2000 and two Flying Colors albums since 2012 and you have a pretty impressive total (though I think Steven wins in terms of sheer quantity).

Dellers · « **Reply #15 on:** March 01, 2015, 06:15:53 AM »

Earth, Wind & Fire and Kool & The Gang come to mind. They both have around 15 hours of studio material released. Tower Of Power shouldn't be too far behind DT either. Spyro Gyra probably has the most out of any band I'm listening to though, definitely more than 20 hours.

SuperTaco · « **Reply #16 on:** March 01, 2015, 06:52:26 AM »

Nobody is ever going to rival Buckethead for sheer quantity of music released. It's just soooooo much.

Nihil-Morari · « **Reply #17 on:** March 01, 2015, 07:06:56 AM »

What about Omar Rodriguez Lopez?

I just bought a couple of him, one of the liner notes said "This was a very fun record to make, I've written and recorded it in 5 or 6 days"
Wikipedia says 28 solo studio records since 2004.

Klaus Schulze, 52 albums, and that's without counting his massive box sets full of new material, totalling 65 albums. All since 1972.

And of course Zappa, 99 official albums starting in the 60's.

McNugg · « **Reply #18 on:** March 01, 2015, 07:08:05 AM »

Rush released 15 albums in their first 19 years. Amazing consistency, especially considering how varied their output was though their different phases.

rumborak · « **Reply #19 on:** March 01, 2015, 07:19:06 AM »

Prince is also notorious for his throughput.

Regarding Genesis, I think the amazing thing with them is how big they were 20 years into their career. Not many bands fill stadiums at that point.

JediKnight1969 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 01, 2015, 07:47:36 AM »

Yngwie Malmsteen: 20 albums in 28 years.

Stadler · « **Reply #21 on:** March 01, 2015, 07:49:19 AM »

Quote from: Rodni Demental on February 28, 2015, 06:10:59 PM

Hmm, while DT haven't squeezed 9 albums into 12 years, the problem is the Beatles had a very short lifespan (at least in terms of output). Despite their amazing consistency in the 60s, we can't automatically assume they would have kept that up. A lot of bands are really busy at the start of their careers (sometimes pumping out 2 albums a year or at least 1 every year) but start slowing down after a while.

McCartney kept up the pace between his solo albums and Wings, then add in George and John's solo work, while less prolific individually, when combined means... yeah, I think we can assume they would have kept it up.

Honestly? And I don't think this is a dig at all, because it's not a contest, but comparatively, I don't think DT is really all that "prolific" in that sense.

Beatles: 12 albums in what is really 7 years (and not including all the non-album singles and anthologies which were recorded at this time)
Zeppelin: 15 in 25 (if you could Page/Plant solo works)
Marillion: 17 in 30
The Rocking Rolling Stones: 16 in 24 years (if you go from Aftermath in '66 through Steel Wheels in '92)

The king is really Elton John: from his first album Empty Sky in '69 to Made In England in '95: 24 albums in 26 years, including TWO double albums.

I think Hank Williams, Jr. has something like 25 or 30 from 1975 when he started doing his own material (instead of his father's) through 2001.

KevShmev · « **Reply #22 on:** March 01, 2015, 08:01:03 AM »

Well, if you are gonna go solo and side projects of the guys from LZ, then you could do the same for DT (LTE, TA when Portnoy was in the band, solo albums by Rudess, JLB, Petrucci, etc.), and then they'd be just as prolific.

Plus, when talking about older artists, it is worth mentioning that albums were much shorter back then. I mean, the Beatles had a ton of albums in a short time span, but most of them were less than 40 minutes, IIRC. Help!, for example, is 14 songs and 35 minutes. Please Please Me is 14 songs and 33 minutes. I am not arguing "more is better," merely than when discussing sheer quantity, you have to take minutes of music into account, instead of looking at just the number of albums.

BlobVanDam · « **Reply #23 on:** March 01, 2015, 08:06:33 AM »

A 35 minute album every year is equivalent to a 70 minute album ever 2 years, so DT would be roughly level with bands of the 70s that were releasing an album a year.

As long as a band releases good music semi-regularly (say an album every 3 years or so), then I don't really care about how "prolific" they are in terms of minutes of music released. Quality over quantity every time.

ToT-147 · « **Reply #24 on:** March 01, 2015, 04:45:18 PM »

Quote from: KevShmev on March 01, 2015, 08:01:03 AM

When talking about older artists, it is worth mentioning that albums were much shorter back then. I mean, the Beatles had a ton of albums in a short time span, but most of them were less than 40 minutes, IIRC. Help!, for example, is 14 songs and 35 minutes. Please Please Me is 14 songs and 33 minutes. I am not arguing "more is better," merely than when discussing sheer quantity, you have to take minutes of music into account, instead of looking at just the number of albums.

This exactly..

Kotowboy · « **Reply #25 on:** March 01, 2015, 05:28:46 PM »

I've put out almost 10 albums in just over 2 years

They're all shit but there you go.

ytserush · « **Reply #26 on:** March 01, 2015, 05:38:28 PM »

John Zorn. You can look it up.

Stadler · « **Reply #27 on:** March 01, 2015, 06:50:38 PM »

Quote from: ytserush on March 01, 2015, 05:38:28 PM

John Zorn. You can look it up.

Good call.

bl5150 · « **Reply #28 on:** March 01, 2015, 06:58:40 PM »

Quote from: Kotowboy on March 01, 2015, 05:28:46 PM

I've put out almost 10 albums in just over 2 years

They're all shit but there you go.

We need a "Best Of..........." - then it might be 1 awesome album in 2 years.

King Postwhore · « **Reply #29 on:** March 01, 2015, 07:03:58 PM »

Quote from: ToT-147 on March 01, 2015, 04:45:18 PM

Quote from: KevShmev on March 01, 2015, 08:01:03 AM
When talking about older artists, it is worth mentioning that albums were much shorter back then. I mean, the Beatles had a ton of albums in a short time span, but most of them were less than 40 minutes, IIRC. Help!, for example, is 14 songs and 35 minutes. Please Please Me is 14 songs and 33 minutes. I am not arguing "more is better," merely than when discussing sheer quantity, you have to take minutes of music into account, instead of looking at just the number of albums.

This exactly..

Length has nothing to do with it. You can spend months on a 3 minute song and spend 2 weeks on a 20 minute epic.

Shadow Ninja 2.0 · « **Reply #30 on:** March 01, 2015, 07:10:57 PM »

well yeah but the thread is specifically about the quantity of music released within a certain timeframe

King Postwhore · « **Reply #31 on:** March 01, 2015, 07:13:08 PM »

Quote from: Shadow Ninja 2.0 on March 01, 2015, 07:10:57 PM

well yeah but the thread is specifically about the quantity of music released within a certain timeframe

Oh $#%t I missed that!

I would say the Dead then.

Prog Snob · « **Reply #32 on:** March 01, 2015, 07:31:05 PM »

Quote from: kingshmegland on March 01, 2015, 07:03:58 PM

Quote from: ToT-147 on March 01, 2015, 04:45:18 PM
Quote from: KevShmev on March 01, 2015, 08:01:03 AM
When talking about older artists, it is worth mentioning that albums were much shorter back then. I mean, the Beatles had a ton of albums in a short time span, but most of them were less than 40 minutes, IIRC. Help!, for example, is 14 songs and 35 minutes. Please Please Me is 14 songs and 33 minutes. I am not arguing "more is better," merely than when discussing sheer quantity, you have to take minutes of music into account, instead of looking at just the number of albums.

This exactly..

Length has nothing to do with it. You can spend months on a 3 minute song and spend 2 weeks on a 20 minute epic.

ToT-147 · « **Reply #33 on:** March 01, 2015, 08:31:18 PM »

And you can also spend 3 weeks on a 69 minute album..

puppyonacid · « **Reply #34 on:** March 02, 2015, 04:18:22 AM »

Because it's what i do - since we're mentioning the Beatles et al:

Queen released 14 albums in 18 years. If you count the touring years up to 1986 that makes 12 albums in 13 years. Not too shabby.

News: Track-by-track video for Untethered Angel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Co1_h0GtAw

Author Topic: Do you know any band with more music released than DT?.. (Read 4402 times)