I simply can't think of a band that has lasted longer than 10 years with essentially the original lineup that continued to be good.
I'm sure isn't 100% accurate but I feel like bands are only good for around 10 years then usually start to go to shit or at the very least they start releasing a worse rate of albums.
10 years seems like a realistic stopping point for a band to continue to be good if they started as a good band.
Bands like King Crimson and Swans don't count in my view because of the amount of lineup changes that allowed them to not go stale.
Additionally bands that broke up or went on hiatus then got back together don't count because often that time apart is a rejuvenation period and bands can sometimes get better when reforming.
Radiohead? they dipped for a bit but seem to be back on track
John Nguyen
The Beatles lasted 10 years 1960-1970 Obviously this is personal preference but I don't think they did anything noteworthy after Disintegration so they were good from exactly 1979-1989, again 10 years Maybe, though I really don't care for their last two records honestly
Austin Gutierrez
The Rolling Stones had near 20 years of relevance from 1964 until the early 80s.
David Peterson
They get an honorable mention because I don't really like them that much. Some songs here and there, some absolute shit too like Satanic Majesty
Ayden Bailey
Wish was a huge album for them which was ‘92. Critical and commercial success. Burn was pretty big song in ‘96 too.
Bentley Garcia
Radiohead
Nathaniel Richardson
dude what the fuck happened to mac demarco btw
Gavin Jackson
5-10 years.
Jace Thomas
Slipknot 666BC-20666FG
Liam Bell
XTC Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds of course
Tyler Diaz
I too am fairly hard pressed to think of bands that kept the majority of their main line up the same that stayed GREAT for over a decade. Most artists that initially come to mind that have stayed great for a long period of time are either solo artists who worked with a revolving door of musicians, or bands who had massive line up changes consistently over the years. However, some exceptions I can think of include: Radiohead Sonic Youth Fugazi (though they barely lasted over a decade) REM Rush
To be fair though, there are a lot of bands who change lineups a lot but consist of generally the same one or two songwriters who are constants. I guess it can be argued that the revolving door of musicians keeps things fresh though.
Wyatt Harris
Beach House havent made a mistake yet and it has been 12 years sooo
Are people still talking about them like they did with "Teen Dream" and "Bloom"? Not really.
Angel Cook
Les Rallizes Denudes
Levi Gonzalez
Autechre have been good for over 20 years.
Henry Davis
i thought you were measuring based on quality, not buzz
Dylan Stewart
What do you mean?
Isaac Wright
hehe their last album was unlistenable >Radiohead Yeah I can kind of see this >Sonic Youth Nothing they did after Dirty interests me except for stray songs, never a full album. So once again it's 10 years for them 1982-1992 >Fugazi Big fan of 13 Songs, Repeater, In On The Kill Taker, and The Argument, but everything else isn't for me, but I can see them breaking the rule. >REM Maybe >Rush What is the 90s??? One of the worst bands that's popular on here in my opinion but if you like them it's whatever
Lucas Long
Oh, quality wise with them has always been kind of samey. Just like their music, and I'm not saying that it's a bad thing either.
Camden Cook
Wish is a fantastic album. Easily one of their best.
Nolan Price
radiohead has been >thom york doing his own shit and then the band plays for a good 10 years
Easton Powell
>Rush >What is the 90s Only shit period for Rush was the late 80s though. Mid 90s on was good.
Hunter Cox
Lol this. That's why Jonny has to do film scores and literally drag his side project on tour to open for Radiohead.
Jason Cook
>Radiohead The Bends through In Rainbows was good, that's 12 years >Sonic Youth >Fugazi Everything was good, but from first EP to The Argument was 13 years. To be fair though, there's no reason to believe another album wouldn't have been great. >REM Chronic Town to Automatic for the People was 10 years. >Rush Fly By Night through Grace Under Pressure was 10 years.
Not a bad list, but it hardly shatters the theory.
Blake Reyes
Forgot Sonic Youth. Debut EP through Dirty was 10 years. They were ok afterward, but nothing essential.
Brayden Peterson
yeah they're very bad >Not a bad list, but it hardly shatters the theory. Exactly, can we get any other bands??
I almost want to say Guided By Voices, they're a favorite band of mine, but in the late 90s they completed changed their lineup with Bob being the only original member.
They had a break and lineup changes so they don't count
Anthony Torres
Good choice
Camden Roberts
I'm curious why you think this way, if anything it's now the complete opposite. Thom said he doesn't even have full songs to bring to the band anymore, only small fragments, which they have to flesh out for him cause he now finds it impossible to finish anything.
Michael Perez
they only changed up their bassist and drummer a couple times, and between gaps is still over 10+ years of making music fuck you
Lincoln Cruz
Bands are highly inefficient.
Evan Campbell
Hmm I don't know, Umma Gumma is a shit record, Saucerful of Secrets is fine and Atom Heart Mother is mediocre
Their only knock out records for me are The Wall, Animals, and The Final Cut.
Samuel Gomez
>fuck you The OP says bands that reunited don't count don't be so salty I like Killing Joke
