I'm very, very undecided on this.

I see advantages to both. I think the most glaring con is on the burnout side, as no one wants to see their favorite band go down in flames.

However, I'm not sure either applies to bands who go away "early" in their careers. Then again, maybe I don't understand the definition of the choices.

As far as bands that ended too early, the first few that come to mind are TREOS, The Felix Culpa, and Therefore I Am.

I'll add Beloved (US) to that list. I'll always wonder what they could have done after Failure On.

"Those Who Left" is one of my favorite Murder by Death songs. Good choice.

Acceptance had a huge impact on me in high school and I'm convinced they would have hit it big and given us many great albums had they stuck around longer.

Burn out, at least I think so.

I think it's better to burn out, because although that band may not be as popular as they once were, there's a good chance someone is listening to them and getting something from it.

My my, hey hey
Rock and roll is here to stay
It's better to burn out, than to fade away
my my, hey hey

Out of the blue and into the black
You pay for this and they gave you that
And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black

It's a small crime that we never got to hear a third album from this band. Sever Your Roots was beyond incredible, but I think they could've written one hell of a follow up.

i've always wondered what's worse, for a band to put out a couple of great records and then continue with a slew of lackluster ones or just release two or three solid albums and call it a day...having that be the lasting print?

People will always be more excited about the bands who burn out (look at the craziness that came with the ATDI reunion and all the other ones from the past two years), but I can't help but think that more music from a band I love, even if there's a drop in quality, is better.

Originally Posted by Adam Pfleider

i've always wondered what's worse, for a band to put out a couple of great records and then continue with a slew of lackluster ones or just release two or three solid albums and call it a day...having that be the lasting print?

I smell a Thursday discussion ...

Anyway, I think about this with certain bands. Some I wish would've ended after their first album, while others only released one album and they became legends

I mean, look at The Sex Pistols...one album
The Unicorns ...one near-perfect album
Clap Your Hands Say Yeah...if they only released their debut they would be the ultimate Indie legend.
The Postal Service!
There are a ton more but these came to mind.

Originally Posted by Adam Pfleider

i've always wondered what's worse, for a band to put out a couple of great records and then continue with a slew of lackluster ones or just release two or three solid albums and call it a day...having that be the lasting print?

Eh, it depends. It's pretty subjective. There will never be a band that writes a record that nobody in there fan base likes. It will always reach out to someone, even if the majority dont dig it.

Originally Posted by Holly HoX!

I smell a Thursday discussion ...

You think Thursday got worse with each release?

Originally Posted by Adam Pfleider

i've always wondered what's worse, for a band to put out a couple of great records and then continue with a slew of lackluster ones or just release two or three solid albums and call it a day...having that be the lasting print?

I'd definitely say that putting out lackluster releases is much worse. Way better to end on top with a positive lasting impression in the heads of fans. I think of Armor for Sleep.

In terms of Culpa, while I love what they have done, I think they were smart to call it quits when they did. I think it's hard to say that a band that has been around over 8 years called it too early. They played a house show at my place last summer and I could definitely feel that they felt it was nearing the end.